PROVIDENCE COMMENTS
‘Yes’ comments
“Celibacy was always optional in the Eastern Church – should be the same in the Latin Rite. But it will take time to change the culture and the mentality of the American Catholics to adapt/make a change – it will be a great challenge to a future clergy. I will be glad to discuss this issue with you in future. God bless you.”
“It’s a pity – the word ‘mandatory’. It sounds ‘old age’. ‘Voluntary’. It sounds better. Free, open, respectful, and humble discussion is needed. Humble! What or who is absolutely correct. Surely I’m not. Surely you’re not.”
“While I have seen no compelling arguments in favor of abrogating the mandatory celibacy rule, I see no harm in an open discussion of the rule. In my opinion the willingness for such a dicussion would be a sign of the vitality of the Church. What is there to be afraid of?”
“Please send survey to dozens of ex-priests.”
“How do we support a married clergy and their children?”
“The system keeps promoting the same old broken record.”
“And NO, I would not take advantage of the change.” (Supporter of optional celibacy)
“Good job – Thanks!”
“Thank you for asking. Yes.”
“The call to priesthood and the call to celibacy are different charisms. Current mandatory celibacy in the Western Church for Diocesan Priests has linked the two charisms together in way that may not be time for some men who are called to the priesthood but not to celibacy.”
“I believe that the basic issue is that of ordination to the priesthood should be open to all in the chruch. The faithful should not be denied Eucharist because of outdated restrictions on who can or cannot be ordained.”
“I favor optional celibacy. It is a charism and should not be demanded for priesthood. That being said, the parishes would have to pay a living wage if priests have families. We aren’t good at ‘living wages’ now for other persons who minister in the church. We too often have to expect contributed services and some attempt at a good salary.”
“Thank you for organizing the survey. Thank you for providing anonymity. Unfortunately it seems necessary to encourage a fuller response. To respect your process I will not sign. I don’t want to invalidate the procedure. I would sign my name if you wanted it. Your commitment to the church is admirable.”
“As a matter of fact there are married priests in the RC Church, there is one on the PC faculty, a former Episcopal priest. Marriage doesn’t seem to work in group where friends are shared. If the RC Church were to allow married priests there would be several issues to address. 1. Adequate support for priests. 2. I think a two-tiered salary system would lead to problems i.e. a higher salary for married priests and a lower one for celibate priests. 3. What to do about divorced priests who wish to remarry. 4. There could also be some problems if the priest’s wife was not Catholic.”
‘No’ comments:
“Anathema sic! I put a curse on all of your members!!you people should get a life!! Now there’s a name( referring to the last name of the person who signed the cover letter Shanley)! Anathema Sis!”
“You’re whistling in the wind.”
“Celibacy is a gift not a deprivation”
“Why all the secrecy?”
“There is no open discussion in ‘the church’ on this isn’t there? If you mean a confrontation discussion then: NO.”
“The church is not governed by ‘open discussions’. Are you willing to support not only a priest but his wife and children? Pay for their college educations? Everything else involved? Leave the running of the church to those inspired by the holy spirit to do so. The misguided activities of Call to Action are not in the best interests of the church or God’s plan for salvation.Busybodies need to find other things to occupy all their free time.”
“Your pressure probably has the opposite effect. Let it be.”
“Am celibate priest 57 years and HAPPY!”
“Patricia, Give it up!! Your liberal days are over. The church is 2000 years old. Rather than wasting your time with ‘Call to Action’ join a group that will call you to holiness!!”
“I say no because the statement is too vague. 1 – open discussion by whom, with whom, formal, informal? Informal discussion always goes on. 2-Celibacy-the word has two meanings a)no marriage b)no sexual activity 3- ‘in re’ marriage- married men become priests and ordained priests getting married are not the same thing.4- Why was the limitation to ‘diocesan’ priests, which I assume to mean secular. Many religious order priests carry on the same ministries that diocesan priests and come under the same canons as the Code of Canon Law, with the added obligation involved with their religious vows- ‘not marrying’ also applies to unwed permanent deacons.”
“”Call to Action does not desire an ‘open discussion’ of the celibacy rule. It desires it’s destruction. My literary output on this subject is enclosed. Sincerely Yours in Christ, [name redacted]”
“Disobedience is the worst part of your action!”
“Don’t skew the survey for your agenda. Honesty above all ?. Patricia the ‘action’ your group calls for is called dissent. While celibacy is a discipline and can be discussed and even changed. Other issues your group wants changed are nonnegotiable (abortion, contraception, male only priesthood, etc). I would say any priest associated with CTA is a false Shepard. Regards.”
“Thank God the church is not a democracy”
“The Vatican will not listen.”
“NO please!!!”
Not Sure comments:
Ordained priests cannot marry but I would favor a discussion of
married men being ordained.
Back to statistics