Couldn’t agree more, celibacy is not for everyone, but what a candle in the dark when it is lived in anticipation of the life to come. Thank you for making that clear.
Traditional Catholic here. My husband's passing was at 3 am, the priest was there as soon as I called him. What you are saying Patrick, is truly our treasure found in the church, a man totally devoted to God. Thank you for this video ❤
I bet you could if you quit your other day job! Just kidding. Not judging at all. Not everyone is cut out to be an emergency room doctor or ObyGyn either.
Thank you Patrick, I fully agree with your comments. In support, I remember coaches in high school and college demanding that their athletes remain celibate during the season. Olympic coaches do the same to their athletes. It makes sense to "sacrifice" certain pleasures (food and others) so that you remain in peak condition. It's certainly not outrageous to suggest that we want our priests to be in peak 'condition' and pure when they represent us before Christ Himself at the Mass. If Christ lived a celibate life, why shouldn't we expect the same from those "in persona Christi".
I overheard a Novus Ordo "permanent deacon" telling a parishioner "I won't be here next week for Palm Sunday because my wife thinks I spend too much time here on weekends, and wants to do something fun instead." Patrick, what I like about your videos is your clear, concise and thoughtful explanations of relevant topics of faith. Thank you for your sharing.
@@alecfoster4413 My point is, here was a "man of God", who underwent training and made a commitment over and above a typical layman who, on one of the most important days of the liturgical year, has to answer to his wife, who apparently thinks there must be something more "fun" to do than go to Mass on Palm Sunday. Now imagine that man was a priest, married to a similarly "neglected" wife. Do you see how that might be sub-optimal?
@@alecfoster4413 The point is: married deacons live a divide life compared to celibate priests who are not married, per 1 Cor 7 and the whole Catholic tradition.
Well, on this topic what I’ve found is that most CATHOLICS (let alone non-Catholics and the ugly media) don’t seem to understand is that allowing priests to marry wound only affect non-religious priests. To start, by very definition there has never been nor ever could be a “married monk”. He’d no longer be a “monk”. The Evangelical Counsels are there for men and women religious. So nuns couldn’t marry just as monks couldn’t marry. It goes against their defining characteristics. I cannot at all see where religious congregations could have such a situation: the local Redemptorist parish or Salesian school etc. would not be a properly functioning religious community (despite they’re not being a monastic community) if the one of the three evangelical counsels were just bypassed for certain members. When they have a feminine branch all the more “difficult”. I’d say even impossible. I think the ONLY group of priests who could be married (and are in the eastern rites) are non-religious secular priests, diocesan priests. I really feel this distinction is lost on many, not just the know-nothings of the secular media, but most practicing Catholics as well. BTW: I was recently discussing this very topic with a friend and for the first time popped into my head an idea. There could be a congregation of priests who are allowed to marry and have as their charism working with troubled marriages. A friend of mine who lives and ministers in Kenya & Uganda says it’s not uncommon for priests there to have a “wife” (concubine, rather) but that they are usually very discreet about it and keep their family in another city or village so as not to scandalize too many faithful. To me that says there’s a definite problem needing addressing. Let me know YOUR thoughts, Patrick. Also, I’m of the opinion (just my ‘gut feeling’) that in times and places where corrupt worldly bishops “allowed” clerical concubinage, the priests who engaged in it, although “with permission”, were STILL in the state of mortal sin. Just as Moses “gave permission” for men to divorce their wives (few understand that it was so a greater evil - uxoricide - wouldn’t be committed) those men still committed adultery, just with “permission” to keep them from a worse crime. [Did I write a comment or a BOOK 😮?]
The office of a priest is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9
Married obstetricians and married trauma physicians with families routinely drop everything to attend to emergencies at o'dark thirty am or on holidays. Sorry...bad argument for celibacy. And the fact that Eastern Rite Catholic priests, East Orthodox priests, and conservative Anglican priests can manage a marriage/family and devotion to their church and congregation simultaneously further undermines the case for mandatory celibacy. However, you are correct that this debate has absolutely nothing to do with the pedophilia crisis. Married public school teachers are the worst offenders by far statistically than the clergy of any faith. But married Catholic priests with children would be very effective and I think more relatable to the daily experiences and challenges of their congregations. Just one 65-year-old Catholic's opinion. Ave Maria!
One of the reasons for making celibacy mandatory in the Early Church was disputes arising between The Church and offspring of the Priests concerning Church Assets and Land
Missed the whole point. I did not ground celibacy in that one real world reality. But celibacy is objectively superior to the married state, and that's one of the chief reasons. Take the teaching or leave it. And it's super obvious why from the POV of service and availability. MDs with long hours very often pose a real problem for family life and marital happiness. The rest of of your reply has too many historical errors to address.
“There is no evidence in the language of Jesus that he thought about a priesthood replacing the Jewish priesthood in the Temple,” concedes the great Catholic New Testament scholar Fr. Raymond E. Brown in his book Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine. Jesus “designated none of his followers as priests,” Brown observes. The Church later read back the institution of the priesthood into the accounts of the Last Supper, but “we have virtually no information” about who presided at the Eucharist in New Testament times. “Prior to the beginning of the third century, no Christian text uses the title ‘priest’ (hiereus in Greek, sacerdos in Latin) directly to designate a particular individual or group of ministers within the Church,” he writes in The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship.
@@Justas399 Ahhh…Good ole Raymond Brown. If it weren’t for his biblical “scholarship” there’d still be a lot of Catholics believing in the “miracles” in the Bible that he so studiously “debunked”. [Then again, maybe RAY was WRONG and 2,000 years of biblical exegesis BEFORE him was RIGHT. There is THAT possibility.] Personally I flush the Brown stuff and stick with traditional interpretations.
Couldn’t agree more, celibacy is not for everyone, but what a candle in the dark when it is lived in anticipation of the life to come. Thank you for making that clear.
Traditional Catholic here. My husband's passing was at 3 am, the priest was there as soon as I called him. What you are saying Patrick, is truly our treasure found in the church, a man totally devoted to God.
Thank you for this video ❤
You are most welcome!
As a married father, I cannot imagine adding the priesthood on top of my current duties.
I bet you could if you quit your other day job! Just kidding. Not judging at all. Not everyone is cut out to be an emergency room doctor or ObyGyn either.
Behold: the point! yes!
I’d never understood priestly clibacy before today.
Fantastic feedback!
Thank you Patrick, I fully agree with your comments. In support, I remember coaches in high school and college demanding that their athletes remain celibate during the season. Olympic coaches do the same to their athletes. It makes sense to "sacrifice" certain pleasures (food and others) so that you remain in peak condition. It's certainly not outrageous to suggest that we want our priests to be in peak 'condition' and pure when they represent us before Christ Himself at the Mass. If Christ lived a celibate life, why shouldn't we expect the same from those "in persona Christi".
Yes yes, yes and yes.
I overheard a Novus Ordo "permanent deacon" telling a parishioner "I won't be here next week for Palm Sunday because my wife thinks I spend too much time here on weekends, and wants to do something fun instead."
Patrick, what I like about your videos is your clear, concise and thoughtful explanations of relevant topics of faith. Thank you for your sharing.
What's your point? That man is a deacon, not a priest.
@@alecfoster4413 My point is, here was a "man of God", who underwent training and made a commitment over and above a typical layman who, on one of the most important days of the liturgical year, has to answer to his wife, who apparently thinks there must be something more "fun" to do than go to Mass on Palm Sunday. Now imagine that man was a priest, married to a similarly "neglected" wife. Do you see how that might be sub-optimal?
@@marknelson8435You make perfect sense
Hey Mark -- yeah, that's a perfect snapshot of many issues. Thanks!
@@alecfoster4413 The point is: married deacons live a divide life compared to celibate priests who are not married, per 1 Cor 7 and the whole Catholic tradition.
Good talk, beatiful background.
Well, on this topic what I’ve found is that most CATHOLICS (let alone non-Catholics and the ugly media) don’t seem to understand is that allowing priests to marry wound only affect non-religious priests.
To start, by very definition there has never been nor ever could be a “married monk”. He’d no longer be a “monk”. The Evangelical Counsels are there for men and women religious. So nuns couldn’t marry just as monks couldn’t marry. It goes against their defining characteristics.
I cannot at all see where religious congregations could have such a situation: the local Redemptorist parish or Salesian school etc. would not be a properly functioning religious community (despite they’re not being a monastic community) if the one of the three evangelical counsels were just bypassed for certain members. When they have a feminine branch all the more “difficult”. I’d say even impossible.
I think the ONLY group of priests who could be married (and are in the eastern rites) are non-religious secular priests, diocesan priests.
I really feel this distinction is lost on many, not just the know-nothings of the secular media, but most practicing Catholics as well.
BTW: I was recently discussing this very topic with a friend and for the first time popped into my head an idea.
There could be a congregation of priests who are allowed to marry and have as their charism working with troubled marriages.
A friend of mine who lives and ministers in Kenya & Uganda says it’s not uncommon for priests there to have a “wife” (concubine, rather) but that they are usually very discreet about it and keep their family in another city or village so as not to scandalize too many faithful. To me that says there’s a definite problem needing addressing.
Let me know YOUR thoughts, Patrick.
Also, I’m of the opinion (just my ‘gut feeling’) that in times and places where corrupt worldly bishops “allowed” clerical concubinage, the priests who engaged in it, although “with permission”, were STILL in the state of mortal sin. Just as Moses “gave permission” for men to divorce their wives (few understand that it was so a greater evil - uxoricide - wouldn’t be committed) those men still committed adultery, just with “permission” to keep them from a worse crime.
[Did I write a comment or a BOOK 😮?]
Clibate? Check spelling on your headline
By now I’ve taken the spelling errors to be intentional. So many, so often.
Fixed right away.
The office of a priest is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9
Who were the Apostle?
Married obstetricians and married trauma physicians with families routinely drop everything to attend to emergencies at o'dark thirty am or on holidays. Sorry...bad argument for celibacy. And the fact that Eastern Rite Catholic priests, East Orthodox priests, and conservative Anglican priests can manage a marriage/family and devotion to their church and congregation simultaneously further undermines the case for mandatory celibacy.
However, you are correct that this debate has absolutely nothing to do with the pedophilia crisis. Married public school teachers are the worst offenders by far statistically than the clergy of any faith. But married Catholic priests with children would be very effective and I think more relatable to the daily experiences and challenges of their congregations. Just one 65-year-old Catholic's opinion. Ave Maria!
One of the reasons for making celibacy mandatory in the Early Church was disputes arising between The Church and offspring of the Priests concerning Church Assets and Land
Missed the whole point. I did not ground celibacy in that one real world reality. But celibacy is objectively superior to the married state, and that's one of the chief reasons. Take the teaching or leave it. And it's super obvious why from the POV of service and availability. MDs with long hours very often pose a real problem for family life and marital happiness. The rest of of your reply has too many historical errors to address.
“There is no evidence in the language of Jesus that he thought about a priesthood replacing the Jewish priesthood in the Temple,” concedes the great Catholic New Testament scholar Fr. Raymond E. Brown in his book Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine.
Jesus “designated none of his followers as priests,” Brown observes. The Church later read back the institution of the priesthood into the accounts of the Last Supper, but “we have virtually no information” about who presided at the Eucharist in New Testament times.
“Prior to the beginning of the third century, no Christian text uses the title ‘priest’ (hiereus in Greek, sacerdos in Latin) directly to designate a particular individual or group of ministers within the Church,” he writes in The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship.
@@Justas399 Ahhh…Good ole Raymond Brown. If it weren’t for his biblical “scholarship” there’d still be a lot of Catholics believing in the “miracles” in the Bible that he so studiously “debunked”.
[Then again, maybe RAY was WRONG and 2,000 years of biblical exegesis BEFORE him was RIGHT. There is THAT possibility.]
Personally I flush the Brown stuff and stick with traditional interpretations.
@ so you sticking with the errors when you should be flushing the traditional interpretations.
@@Justas399 according to somes reckoning. Others reckon differently.
Any special section of the video dedicated to Eastern Catholics, who do practice married clergy?
The video is about the rule, not the much smaller set of exceptions.
Clibacy is real
Are they?
oy vet