Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Cardinal Marx Encourages Viri Probati Debate; Priest Predicts Pope Will Permit Married Priests

Over the past week, German Cardinal Reinhard Marx has once again fueled discussion of the possibility of ordaining to the priesthood those who are called “viri probati”, i.e., married men who lead a virtuous life. Several reports have now been published in Germany which relate what Cardinal Marx himself just said at the assembly of the Bavarian Regional Committee of Catholics (Landeskomitee der Katholiken in Bayern), which is an assembly of Diocesan Councils of the Bavarian Dioceses, as well as including some other organizations and institutions with ecclesial approbation.

According to the report of the official website of the German bishops,, Cardinal Marx encouraged in his talk on Friday, 10 November, in Munich, the debate about the viri probati. (As we earlier reported, in March of 2017, the German cardinal and adviser of Pope Francis in the Council of Nine Cardinals had initially shown himself to be somewhat hesitant to open up this whole debate, although we already had our own doubts about his purported reluctance and “reticence.”) As now puts it in the subtitle of its own report: “Pope Francis is also already talking about it: Cardinal Reinhard Marx wants a broad debate about the ordination of married priests.”

The report continues, saying:

The President of the German Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, considers it to be legitimate to discuss new accesses to the priesthood. Thus, the possibility of ordaining to the priesthood proven married men (viri probati) should be thoroughly considered and discussed “in the larger context” of the topic, said Marx on Friday evening in Munich at the fall assembly of the Bavarian Regional Committee of Catholics.

According the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost, Cardinal Marx reportedly said that “Pope Francis is now speaking with some people about this possibility.” At the same time, Cardinal Marx also stressed that this initiative is not coming from Rome itself. He added that he does not see any new developments with regard to female priests, inasmuch as the Female Deacon Commission as created by Pope Francis has not yet made any of its own statements. The German cardinal stressed that he does not think much of those parishes without a priest: “The Eucharist has to be celebrated.”

Importantly, at that same fall assembly of Diocesan councils, the Viennese theologian Father Paul Zulehner was also invited and asked to speak. He co-authored books with Bishop emeritus Fritz Lobinger (South Africa) who is a promoter of married priests, as well as of the idea of ordaining women to the priesthood. As we reported in March of 2017, Cardinal Marx revealed that, in 2015, Pope Francis had recommended to the German bishops during their ad limina visit in Rome that they read Lobinger’s books. Zulehner is also one of the two priests who launched, in response to the Filial Correction of Pope Francis concerning Amoris Laetitia, the Pro Pope Francis counter-initiative which has been now signed by many heterodox and progressive Catholic scholars and laypersons, such as the excommunicated Austrian lay activist Martha Heizer.

On Friday, Father Zulehner assured his audience that Pope Francis will give permission to ordain married priests for the West. According to Die Tagespost:

At the fall assembly of the Bavarian Regional Committee of Catholics, the Viennese pastoral theologian, Paul Zulehner, showed himself convinced that Pope Francis will admit new forms of the priesthood. “We will still experience it, if somebody does not shoot or poison the pope,” he said. In his eyes, it is now important to put pressures on the local bishops. Zulehner claimed that all conditions for admission [to the priesthood] are up for discussion, to include one’s level of education, sex, and one’s form of living [i.e., one’s “state in life”].

In addition to these statements made on Friday in Munich, the German Catholic website also reports on a recent interview given by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, Cardinal Beniamino Stella. Asked about the possibility that married men might be ordained to the priesthood, especially in light of the upcoming Synod on the Amazon region, Cardinal Stella quoted Pope Francis himself as saying that this is a topic “which one may discuss.” The topic of the lack of priests (and the Eucharist) “causes the pope much suffering,” said Stella. “To receive the Eucharist is a right of all the faithful [sic].”

In the context of this discussion about the ordination of married men in the West, there have now been rumors in circulation claiming that the German bishops  have already sent to Pope Francis a list of German deacons who are married and who wish to be ordained to the priesthood. However, when OnePeterFive reached out to Matthias Kopp, the press speaker of the German Bishops’ Conference, we were told that these were false claims and that such a list does not exist.

Independently of these recent rumors, we have seen indications that preparations are being made to allow married men more widely to be ordained to the priesthood. Recent reports from reliable sources have confirmed this suspicion. If these indications are borne out in action at the upcoming synod for the Amazon region, it may well be another step toward the attenuation of the Catholic Church’s own distinctive identity and unique charism.

264 thoughts on “Cardinal Marx Encourages Viri Probati Debate; Priest Predicts Pope Will Permit Married Priests”

  1. “Pope Francis is also already talking about it: Cardinal Reinhard Marx
    wants a broad debate about the ordination of married priests.”

    LOL……would that be a “broad debate” like the ….*cough*…..”debates” at the two Synods on the Family? After watching this crapola unfold for 50 years, it’s all so tiresome and predictable. Do I really need to decode this for anyone? A “broad debate” is an orchestrated charade in which a predetermined and already rubber-stamped outcome is given a veneer of authenticity by a carefully stage-managed and fake “discussion” in which all meaningful, authentic theology is demonized and ridiculed in advance by the Francis-turbo fan and interventions at the Synod are suppressed.

    Vocations tanked in Buenos Aires during Bergoglio’s tenure as Archbishop, almost as badly as they’ve tanked in Germany. I’ll bet you could count Marx’s seminarians on one hand and they’re all light in the loafers. This is just the latest (but not the last) chapter in this deconstuctionist pontificate. Having completely destroyed vocations, these clowns now go in search of a fake “solution” to their self-made problem.

    Know what the next chapter is? Female deacons. You heard it here first. Hopefully, by that stage, the schism will have already occurred.

    • What are faithful, orthodox Catholics who have no choice but the NO going to do? I am a grown man and I am choking tears back. I don’t know if I am mad, sad, despondent or, worst of all, despairing. I hate these Germans and Francis awful. He is the worst thing that has happened to the Church.

      My God that we have fallen so low as to deserve this man.

      • I am very sorry especially for those amongst us who have less choices regarding attending Mass. The Good Lord knows that we have not personally brought this whole Church crisis upon ourselves. The Lord calls us sheep so He obviously believes we are subject to being preyed upon and pretty vulnerable. Yesterday morning prayer was the Prayer of Ananias from inside the fire, and he groaned to God about what he could see : things were dire and there were no priests, prophets or sacrifices, and so Ananias offered himself as the next best sacrifice to God. The sentiments in his prayer were inspiring and humble. What I personally have recently done is download a Liturgy of the Hours App. and reading the prayer of the Church every morning has made a huge difference. The prayer of the church is thousands of years old, so think about grabbing that now to be a shield in possible times of wondering about what next to do. God bless!

        • Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleOnlineEasyGlobalTechJobsOpportunities/easy/jobs ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!da146luu

      • I’m in the same boat as you. I’m a prisoner of the Novus ordo these last 50 years. Don’t despair. There are good priests within the Church who, I’m hoping and praying, will not be sucked into the Francis-borg but will depart from it and minister to us in some form or another. They may have to become itinerant and our access to Mass may be sporadic but the good Lord will provide for us.

      • You’re not alone, Brian. The Holy Prophet Eliseus once said:

        “Fear not: for there are more with us than with them.” 4 Kings 6: 16

        The crisis in the Church WILL end; however, imo we are not in the end times because we have yet to see the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. (I guarantee that with everything going on in the world today, we are NOT seeing Her Triumph.)

        Save Your people, O Lord, and bless Your inheritance. Grant victory to Your Church over her enemies, and protect Your people by Your Cross.

        Tone 1, Troparion of the Holy Cross

    • The vocations tanked because Bergolio tanked them. Got to have a manufactured need for the viri probation. The rich German Church can pay for it with its government money. Next the priestesses, the the fabulous wedding of Father John and Father Joe, after all they live in the rectory together at St Cardinal Bernardiin Catholic Ecumenical Church.

    • It would be wise to think clearly and rationally, not emotionally, in response to the situation. There is nothing wrong with married priests per-se. The real issue is where it leads.

      If this is a step towards ordaining women then yes, there is cause for alarm. One necessary countermeasure is reestablishing emphasis on the different roles of men and women, something even most very conservative Catholics fail to adequately stress.

      If on the other hand married priests are a step towards reestablishing a married episcopacy then it should be welcome, as it will allow compliance with St. Paul’s very explicit and repeated guidance on the topic, as well as Christ’s example picking a married St. Peter as the first pope.

      • Even when some men were married they abstained from the marital embrace once ordained. Let’s not revise history to suit our modern desires.

      • There has been a priestly shortage for many decades. Why does the Church consider this moment imperative to discuss married priests? The real issue or shall I say the real question is: ” Why?”

        Vocations to the priesthood of good and faithful men are dropping more and more, and most likely, will tank considerably with this ” new and improved” measure to obtain more priests.
        And let me ask this: these married men who want to become priests, what has their catechism been like throughout their life?

        I understand that the Byzantine Rite permits married men. But, I believe we are comparing apples to oranges.
        For it seems the Byzantine has maintained a purity and clarity of Church dogmas within its confines and has done a far better job at catechizing than those of us in the Roman Rite.

        These are important questions I ask very clearly and rationally.

      • No it’s not welcome because it ignores St. Paul’s clear teaching on the superiority of the celibate calling, due to the constraints and conflicts experienced by men who must devote themselves to a wife. The discipline of celibacy, which Pope St. John Paul II called “the brightest jewel of our priesthood” developed very early in the Church’s life and the writings of the Church Fathers, Popes and saints on this subject are substantial. The virtue of celibacy and continence is recognized even in those churches (e.g. Orthodox) which permit married men to be ordained (though not ordained men to marry). The episcopate is celibate and there is a strong monastic tradition which emphasizes celibacy. Paul’s instructions to nascent Christian communities recognized that some men who wished to serve the Church were already married but Paul is at pains to emphasize the shortcomings of this state with respect to the ordained ministry.

        Married clergy is a hallmark of the Protestant revolt which is where the Francis-experiment is heading. The Tradition of the Catholic Church regarding celibacy stretches back two millennia and your assertion that this 2,000 year Tradition is somehow in violation of St. Paul’s “repeated guidance” is pure Protestant apologetics and complete nonsense

        Is that “rational” enough for you?

        • If you read Teilhard de Chardin, SJ, and the interpretation by Malachi Martin, also SJ, this is not going where you think that it is going. It is all based on world socialism and a global “priesthood of the laity”. It is all about diversity and inclusion and not about sin and redemption. In fact, the exclusion of Jesus Christ and Scripture should just about clinch Fulton J. Sheen’s vision of a global Church.

        • No it’s not welcome because it ignores St. Paul’s clear teaching on the superiority of the celibate calling, due to the constraints and conflicts experienced by men who must devote themselves to a wife.

          On one hand you are correct, St. Paul promoted celibacy for some who have this vocation only as a practical benefit, not due to any supposed moral superiority of not having sex. On the other hand though, he unequivocally associated proven patriarchal leadership of a family with vocations in Church leadership. These are not contradictory, most leaders have families and are successful, and being a bishop or priest isn’t necessarily more demanding than other intense vocations.

          It’s not hard to see the merit of his reasoning, as the clergy will naturally attract more sensitive men, so filtering for homosexuals or other unsuitable men is doubly important.

          Paul’s instructions to nascent Christian communities recognized that some men who wished to serve the Church were already married but Paul is at pains to emphasize the shortcomings of this state with respect to the ordained ministry.

          Now you are inventing – can you cite specific support for your claim.

          Married clergy is a hallmark of the Protestant revolt … pure Protestant apologetics and complete nonsense

          The truth is the truth – it goes to the Roman Church’s shame that it had to be pointed out by the Protestants.

          • The celibate state is superior to the married state, which itself is a very good thing. Celibates for Christ should be honoured for the great sacrifice they make, in order to better serve Christ and His Church.

          • Celibates for Christ should be honoured for the great sacrifice they make, in order to better serve Christ and His Church.

            Fine as far as it goes, but it is a stretch to generalize to celibacy vs. marriage. The former can merely indicate laziness and unwillingness to commit, while the latter often involves tremendous sacrifice.

          • It is Church teaching that the celibate state chosen for Christ is superior to the married state, which itself is good, and as you say involves sacrifice. Undoubtedly there are people who have chosen celibacy out of laziness, but this proves little.

          • Right, when Paul spoke only for himself, he made it plain and when he spoke the words God gave him he always makes it plain to all.

        • It is best not to sin at all, but that is not possible for normal humans. I don’t think we should chase the perfect and destroy the good. It is obvious that some of the problems in the Church have been because of repressed sexual desires.

      • After married priests, then we’ll get divorced and remarried priests.
        But hey, everyone’s got a right to the Eucharist, and any adulterer should be able to consecrate the bread and wine irrespective of their concrete situation.

    • Germany…..Marx…..Luther…..Connect the dots. St. John Eudes stated that a mark of God’s anger with mankind is the clergy He sends them…Ravening wolves instead of devoted shepherds. I think God is not a happy camper.

  2. The German cardinal stressed that he does not think much of those
    parishes without a priest: “The Eucharist has to be celebrated.”

    Hmm. Who’s responsible for this situation? What’s being done to increase vocations (the real kind)? Anything? Anything? Bueller?

  3. The day is approaching when Bergoglio will attempt to impose on the Church some innovation that will render “masses” invalid. The new Lutheran/katholyk “mass” reportedly has an UNSPOKEN CONSECRATION. That would invalidate the “mass.”

    The majority of American bishops will go along with it. But that will be the line in the sand for a handful of bishops.

    Without doubt, all Catholic bishops are hoping the crisis will never come before the biological solution occurs.

  4. “To receive the Eucharist is a right of all the faithful [sic].”

    Only the faithful who are in the state of sanctifying grace and are not impeded (e.g. living in adultery) have the right to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ.

    Otherwise, 1 Corinthians 11: 27 et seq. with footnotes:

    . [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

    [27] “Or drink”: Here erroneous translators corrupted the text, by putting and drink (contrary to the original) instead of or drink.

    [27] “Guilty of the body”: not discerning the body. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord’s body.

    [28] “Drink of the chalice”: This is not said by way of command, but by way of allowance, viz., where and when it is agreeable to the practice and discipline of the church.

    • There are about 23 Catholic Churches. The Roman Church is the only one that takes the hard stance you speak of. Are all the others wrong?

  5. Something in the face of His Eminence makes me not trust him; it does not seem illumined from within the way a holy person’s should be. Perhaps that is only uninformed impression, but his words seem to match the face. tgb

  6. I’m sorry, but at this point, why is anyone feigning shock at this announcement?

    I’m honestly shocked that Cardinal Sarah is still in office, although it’s obvious that Pope Francis ignores him anyway. The Mass, as we know it, is done. Finished. Kaput. Liturgies celebrated as ecumenical get-togethers. Transubstantiation out the window. “Priests” tossed by the wayside in favor of (FOR NOW) Viri Probati. But, shortly thereafter will come women priests. Wait. For. It.

    It’s just a matter of time……and time seems to be speeding up these days…..

  7. Our Lady explained to St. Bridget of Sweden

    “But now I shall tell you God’s will in this matter……

    Know this too: that if some pope concedes to priests a license to contract carnal marriage, God will condemn him to a sentence as great, in a spiritual way, as that which the law justly inflicts in a corporeal way on a man who has transgressed so gravely that he must have his eyes gouged out, his tongue and lips, nose and ears cut off, his hands and feet amputated, all his body’s blood spilled out to grow completely cold, and finally, his whole bloodless corpse cast out to be devoured by dogs and other wild beasts. Similar things would truly happen in a spiritual way to that pope who were to go against the aforementioned preordinance and will of God and concede to priests such a license to contract marriage.

    For that same pope would be totally deprived by God of his spiritual sight and hearing, and of his spiritual words and deeds. All his spiritual wisdom would grow completely cold; and finally, after his death, his soul would be cast out to be tortured eternally in hell so that there it might become the food of demons everlastingly and without end.”

      • Birgitta of Sweden, Life and Selected Revelations
        Paulist Press
        Copyright 1990
        page 173

        Pope Blessed Paul VI said that,

        ‘Celibacy is the jewel on the Crown of the Church’.

    • Dear Mr. Braun!
      Please take care. Our Lady says “concedes priests to contract carnal marriage” but not the opposite (that is: to concede married men to being ordinated). If it were so, Her Son might not have ordinated Peter – a married man. But the Church has always practised (it is still kept that way in the Orthodox Church), that already ordinated men may not marry. This applies too for catholic married deacons, who may not marry again if their legitime wife dies.

      • Peter put away his wife. Novus Ordo Deacons do not put away their wives. Married Deacons were nothing but a creation from the “spirit” of Vatican II to condition the fallen nature of man to accept married Priests. Enjoy your married priests!

          • Don’t be so lazy, it doesn’t take to much to find out. Zeeesh.


            Not only do we not hear about the wives of the apostles, we don’t actually hear about Peter’s wife, either. We know Peter was married because the Synoptic Gospels tell us so; Matthew, Mark and Luke all recount a visit to Peter’s house, where his mother-in-law was down with a fever. Christ Jesus healed her and she immediately got up and waited on them.

            A detail many miss is that had Peter’s wife been around, she would have been mistress of the household, overseeing the comfort of Peter and his guests. Instead, it is the mother-in-law who, once healed, takes charge of the hospitality.

            This suggests to me that Peter was very likely a widow. At some point he brought his mother-in-law into his home — possibly upon her widowhood, but perhaps even before — and upon the death of his wife it would have been a natural thing for this woman to manage the household for her daughter’s husband. Jesus healed her, and then she got up and served, very likely because she was needed to serve.

            In the gospels Martha and Martha are always mentioned together; when Our Lady stands at the cross of her son, we read that Mary [the wife] of Clopas and Mary Magdalene were there, as well. It is not unreasonable to think that had Peter’s wife been around when Jesus came to visit, we would read that his mother-in-law left her sickbed and — with Peter’s wife — served them all.

            Her going unmentioned suggests Peter’s widowhood, and means it’s fair to assert that during time with Christ Jesus, his participation in ministry and subsequent priesthood, Peter was unmarried, and celibate.

          • Don’t be so lazy, it doesn’t take to much to find out.

            It was a rhetorical question – there is no evidence for Peter “putting away” his wife nor for her being dead. Since she shows up briefly in Corinthians neither is possible.

            … had Peter’s wife been around, she would have been mistress of the household …

            About as thin a supposition as they get, and symptomatic of the desperate lengths some will go to deny the obvious on this issue. This is not a trivial problem – whenever the Church tolerates weak thinking like this it loses moral authority.

            Interestingly as well, Clement of Alexandria thought St. Peter’s wife survived and was with him until death, and that they had at least one daughter. His writing doesn’t carry the same authority as St. Paul’s in 1 Corinthians, but it is notable that as he died around 215 AD, he was writing before the notions of celibacy became entrenched in the Church, so it was acceptable to say this.

          • I don’t know your bias for certain but it seems to be this: “Hey man sex is everything not even St. Peter could lay off his wife for the kingdom of God here on earth so, hey, lets have married priests because even St. Peter couldn’t stop himself.” It all comes about from a sex saturated society. Enjoy your married priests and women priests in the mean time.

  8. One open question to the round, because I truly do not exactly understand the controversy in this topic.
    I do see the problem about Amoris Laetitia, as well as the profound crisis, which our Mother Church is going throgh. I also can see that it has to do with the liturgy as well as with the vocational crisis for both the marriage and the celibacy.
    Now, I do not see why married men of proven faith should not be allowed to be priest, when Our Lord chose one married man as the first Pope (probably, most of Apostles were married), and St. Paul also assumes the Bishop may be married once, and be a good keeper of his own family. Also many of the priests among the first christians were married, as far as I know.
    I think this debate is not on the same qualitative level than the harmful discussion about the nature of marriage we are being witnesses right now.
    I humbly ask for dogmatic and historic arguments in this point.

        • Sure:

          “Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J. examines the question of when the
          tradition of priestly celibacy began in the Latin Church, and he is able
          to trace it back to its origins with the apostles. He examines evidence
          about the marital status of every known bishop, priest or deacon of the
          period and gives an exhaustive list of married clerics from apostolic
          times until the end of the seventh century, a list that includes not
          only the Western Church, but the East and also the Nestorian, Novatian
          and Pelagian Church. Then Cochini examines the relevant Church documents
          for the same period, including council and synod documents, papal
          letters, ecclesial and even secular legislation as it relates to the
          problem. He also provides a survey of scholarly literature on the topic.

          This is the definitive scholarly statement on the discipline of
          priestly celibacy in the Church East and West. What Cochini shows
          through patristic sources and conciliar documentation is that from the
          beginning of the Church, although married men could be priests, they
          were required to vow to celibacy before ordination, meaning they
          intended to live a life of continence. He provides extensive
          documentation, a bibliography and an index.”

          • It would be better if you could cite an unambiguous primary source of apostolic origin instead of a modern work. Now not having the book you recommend, what appears to be a reliable summary can be easily found at the unamsanctamcatholicam blogspot from 2014. Really this shows how weak the moral and historical case for priestly continence is, starting with interpretations of St. Paul that can charitably described as tendentious, more realistically as dishonest.

            Words and paragraphs have objective meanings. Think of this in relation to the US Constitution and the trouble imaginative readings and penumbras have caused. What we have linked above is clearly a desperate attempt to retroactively find a penumbra of support for something that just isn’t there. As an interesting exercise read the entire relevant chapters of what St. Paul taught in Corinthians, Titus, and Timothy, then try to articulate in your own words how it supports instead of opposes the idea of priestly continence.

          • Within that work it sounds as if there are several scholarly citations. If that’s not sufficient then you paraphrasing whatever scholarly works and records available to you also, by your logic, is ambiguous and modern.

        • The blog has a long, very informative article on the history of Priestly Continence and Celibacy in the Early Church. The kernel of this article is that Church discipline exists to bear witness to and safeguard a dogma.The clear and consistent teaching of the Fathers is that it is impure and impious for a man to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice to God if he is sexually active.

          • The clear and consistent teaching of the Fathers is that it is impure and impious for a man to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice to God if he is sexually active.

            Thank you very much for bringing to the surface the “sex is dirty” canard behind the imposition of priestly celibacy, as well as some other Catholic innovations.

            It is fair to ask how much of this comes from pious but homosexual or SSA leaders who realize their own desires are disordered, so project onto sexual activity of married couples. This shows clearly with St. Jerome, and in spite of recent attempts to bury or hide his type of views, they have not been effectively expunged.

          • The requirement for priestly continence can be found as early as Exodus 19: “And [The Lord] said to [Moses]: Go to the people, and sanctify them to day, and to morrow, and let them wash their garments. And let them be ready against the third day: for on the third day the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai. And thou shalt appoint certain limits to the people round about, and thou shalt say to them: Take heed you go not up into the mount, and that ye touch not the borders thereof: every one that toucheth the mount dying he shall die. 13No hands shall touch him, but he shall be stoned to death, or shall be shot through with arrows: whether it be beast, or man, he shall not live. When the trumpet shall begin to sound, then let them go up into the mount. And Moses came down from the mount to the people, and sanctified them. And when they had washed their garments, He said to them: Be ready against the third day, AND COME NOT NEAR YOUR WIVES.”

            We find Jesus alluding to it in Matthew 19:12 “The disciples say unto him, If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry. But [Jesus] said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, which were made eunuchs by men: and there are EUNUCHS, EUNUCHS WHO HAVE MADE THEMSELVES EUNUCHS FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

            ***In the ancient world, eunuchs were male royal servants who guarded the king’s wives. Jesus is speaking metaphorically: those who have made themselves eunuchs are those who voluntarily embrace celibacy in imitation of Jesus and for the service of his kingdom, i.e. ordained men. These men are leaders entrusted with the care of **Christ’s bride** –the Church on earth. By embracing consecrated virginity, they live by anticipation the life of heaven.

          • The requirement for priestly continence can be found as early as Exodus 19: … “AND COME NOT NEAR YOUR WIVES.”

            If you have to use temporary continence from Exodus you don’t have anything. There were numerous Jewish requirements that have no relevance for the New Covenant. Do you eat pork or shellfish?

            Matthew 19:12 … “EUNUCHS WHO HAVE MADE THEMSELVES EUNUCHS FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

            As with St. Paul, Jesus portrays this as a vocation for some that has the practical benefit of reduced distractions. Tying it to ordained men isn’t justified, particularly when there are unambiguous directions otherwise from St. Paul, and a clear example from Jesus himself where he gave the top spot to a married man. And no, there is no reason to believe that St. Peter was a widower when his wife is referred to later in Corinthians.

          • From
            ” Levitical law and the recommendation of St. Paul that lay Christians practice temporary continence in order to devote themselves to prayer form the background of the patristic insistence on priestly continence. In both cases, the Fathers use an a minori ad maius (“from the lesser to the greater”) approach. If the priests of the Old Law had to observe temporary continence when it was their turn to serve in the Temple, how much more the priest of the New Law whose ministry is unceasing? Similarly, if St. Paul recommends periodic continence for married lay people when they seek God in prayer, how much more an ordained man who must pray without ceasing? In both cases, the argument centers on the New Testament priest’s role as a permanent mediator on behalf of the Church.”

            Why are we talking past each other? I can’t post the whole article in a combox for you. Please just read it.

          • Levitical law and the recommendation of St. Paul that lay Christians practice temporary continence in order to devote themselves to prayer form the background of the patristic insistence on priestly continence

            We’ve already dealt with Levitical law. The rules of the Old Testament are no longer relevant, and the minori ad maius approach is foolish here – if pork was forbidden then does that mean we must be vegetarians now? Priests were forbidden to be in the same room as a corpse – must they avoid sick people now as well?

            As for St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7 he was correcting the ascetic and negative attitude of the Corinthians toward sex, likely their overreaction to the port of Corinth’s licentious environment. When he allowed for temporary abstinence he was softening his direction that married couples have a vigorous sex life, not recommending it. “A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife. Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another … “

          • Good reasoning, but it won’t stand up because the Bible is full of “best case” behaviors, but we all still live in the world and are not in heaven yet. God is naturally going to show what is the best, but He makes allowances for our weakness; otherwise we wouldn’t be eating meat.

    • This isn’t really a dogmatic or historic argument, but: A lot of people, both in the Church and in the wider world, would view the ordination of married men as some kind of admission that abstaining from sex is just too hard for people to cope with. This, in turn, would undermine the Church’s other teachings on sexual morality, such as the impermissibility of pre-marital sex (since this requires people to remain celibate for the years or decades between hitting puberty and getting married) and the impermissibility of contraception (which requires married couple who can’t afford to have loads of children to abstain from sex for a considerable portion of each month). Not to mention, a lot of people in favour of ordaining married men are also in favour of ordaining female priests, so a lot of people would take the end of clerical celibacy as a sign that female ordinations are just around the corner.

  9. Conservative Catholics should welcome the discussion on a married clergy.. Why?
    —Better married than homosexual.
    —More real world experience enhancing relationships with laity.
    —Better a married priest than no priest in many places.
    —If men married men can be deacons there is no logic to deny them priesthood.

    • The state of marriage is not exactly in good shape today. When marriage is deformed so is celibacy. The solution to this problem is not married men becoming priests. Additionally, marriage is no guarantee the homosexual problem will be solved. BTW, decrees of nullity are passed out like water.

      • Yes are right but not persuasive. I don’t see the connection to what you say and a married clergy. We already have married deacons which seem to work OK. Let’s let the deacons be priests.

    • What you say is reasonable if debatable; after all, married priests already serve in the Catholic Church. But you’re not reading closely enough to understand what is being proposed here. Take, for example, this: “Zulehner claimed that all conditions for admission [to the priesthood] are up for discussion, to include one’s level of education, sex, and one’s form of living [i.e., one’s “state in life”].” Viri probati could very well end up being nothing more than the Catholic equivalent of your local “Pastor Jeb” over at the “Zionist Christian Scripture-Bound Reformed Latter-day Baptist Temple, viz. a perfect ignoramus with a gilt-edged Bible always in hand. Or perhaps they will be something even worse, as that ominous phrase “…one’s form of living” seems to indicate. When weighing what these Teutonic weasels mean, we have to take into consideration every comma, semicolon, and oddly worded phrase that passes their lips. (Also, I agree with those who point out that having married priests doesn’t necessarily exclude homosexuals from the priesthood. After all, sodomites were not a particular problem in Catholic seminaries of the 19th and early 20th century when there were no married priests.)

      • You may be entirely right and I may be entirely wrong. But in the meantime Conservative Catholics should not summarily preclude discussion on the this subject especially when the Church already accepts male Deacons who do everything but say Mass and hear confessions.

        • Which, of course, is exactly what I said, viz. “What you say is reasonable if debatable; after all, married priests already serve in the Catholic Church.”

      • Which Church do you think most closely mirrors the Churches of the first Century; The Eastern Churches, The Roman Church, or the Protestant Churches?

    • Judging from the Anglican experience, ordaining married men wouldn’t necessarily lead to an increase in vocations. Also, I’m not sure that areas with priest shortages would actually be suitable for married priests, since most likely each priest would end up in charge of several different parishes, and good luck maintaining a reasonable family life whilst constantly bouncing back and forth between five or six different parishes. If we do end up ordaining married men, a better use for them would probably be in areas with a quite high ratio of priest:people (if there are any such areas left), where they could just look after one parish (much easier on their family) and free up celibate priests to go to the sorts of areas where one priest has to look after several churches.

      • We have 5 priests in serving our parish plus three deacons. If the deacons were priests the workload would be spread around and the old priests could retire. All I’m saying is the married priest idea should not be dismissed out of hand especially since married deaconate has been approved.

        • Can you imagine a Preist his wife and five kids with the Church supporting. In modern society don’t think it’s workable. But, most importantly, I think this is just an opening on the real road, which is fake women Preist. I believe thisis the real goal.

          • Good point. Yes, if the Church had to support a priest and his family it would detract from the many Social Justice political initiatives that support the Democrat (abortion) Party.

          • I get the irony. Just afraid this issue is Trojan Horse for fake women Preist, and eventually Father Joe and Father Bob getting married. Way things are headed don’t rule it out (luv and all that). Way things are moving don’t rule it out. I pray my fears are unjustified.

          • You are probably right. And there is little resistance within the Church. Right now we have a de facto schism of Traditional vs. Novus Ordo Catholics. My guess is this will become de jure in the future.

  10. Hey all you christians out there, i’ve got proof that your religion is wrong. It goes like this:

    1. Evolution is proven by facts and is thus true (as accepted by the church)
    2. Jesus didn’t believe in evolution, but in direct creation (check your bibles)
    3. So Jesus didn’t know the truth
    4. God knows and only tells the truth
    5. Jesus can’t be God.
    6. Jesus is a man
    7. Christianity is untrue.

    Logical, right?

          • the scientific facts, why every scientist around the globe (more or less) accepts evolution, based on facts.

          • It’s very problematic for evolution and for those who wish to explain the fine tuning of the universe as mere chance.

          • true. But the main thing is that it is generally accepted that evolution did happen, although not every “hole is filled”. It’s not necessary, you see. Compare it to a puzzle, you don’t need all the pieces of the puzzle to be sure, at some point, what the full image is.

          • Except this is a very important puzzle to some people. As for what’s generally accepted by scientists, you’ll need to provide something more compelling because overtime “science” (which is a method, not a noun) has also accepted geocentrism, heliocentrism, now I hear debates about heliocentrism again; Newtonian gravity, string theory only twenty years ago; wave particle duality and now the enigma of quantum physics.


          • The chance that evolution will be considered untrue, is about as big is the chance that science will declare the earth is flat. You have no clue, how vast the evidence is do you. Speaking of a flat earth, did you know jesus believed in it? he believed the stars could and would fall on earth. Figures.

          • “Intellihub reports ridiculous conspiracies and anti-science claims. ”

            Your link is to a ridiculous piece of flim flam–it is nowhere near ‘honest’. Where to start. The author says that two of our major paleontologists disparage evolution and the fossil record. Nope. Stephen Jay Gould had no problem with the fossil record, understanding that the geologic record may be incomplete due to erosion events…but certainly complete enough to devise the geologic time scale and identify transitional forms between major groups of species.

            The author brings in “survival of the fittest’–but this is not an evolutionary biology concept–it is a social concept. In evolution, the most adaptable species in a specific environment will thrive, while those that do not adapt, or have low population numbers, need to migrate to a more suitable environment, produce more offspring, or go extinct.

            What a stupid hysterical claim that understanding evolution means that one is godless. Evolutionary processes should have no impact on your belief in a sky entity. The concept of genetic changes over time within populations has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a god exists or not. Without evolutionary principles, scientists would not have been able to track the origins of the AIDS virus, or SARS, the ‘bird flu’. Because of evolution, we need a new flu vaccine every year, and new pesticides as weeds and insect pests evolve resistance to our chemicals.

          • Refute the whole thing, Sharon. Don’t commit the genetic fallacy.

            Also, talk about disingenuous: “Sky God”? Who really isn’t honest enough to grapple with the claims, Sharon. Attempts at caricature are a low form of argument and contempt is a sign of weakness.

          • Sweetie, the bizarre ranting over-the-top article has been refuted, rebutted, trashed. If you have a specific question concerning evolutionary biology, just ask Dr. Diehl here, background in evolutionary biology, geochemistry, and geology.

            Do you have any science background whatsoever?

            “Sky entity”, dear.

    • This is a joke, right? If so, you need to know those who post at this site have a keener sense of irony. They demand more than this for a good chuckle. Perhaps you should consider posting at the Washington Post or the New York Times, sites that specialize in fake news on their “news” pages and drivel on their comment pages.

    • LOL…….OK……thanks for that bar room theology “slam dunk”.

      But wait a minute…………I’m confused….if “Christianity is untrue” (point #7), that means the New Testament is untrue, right? That, in turn, means we can’t use it to prove that Jesus “didn’t believe in evolution” (point #2), right? That means that your point #2 collapses right? We don’t know what Jesus believed, right?

      That means that your whole house of cards collapses, right? have I got your circular reasoning right here…..LOL!?

          • So how do you know that Jesus “didn’t believe in evolution”??……………..LOL!!

            You just told me it’s unworthy of belief. Perhaps he really did believe in evolution!

          • it says so in the bible, and if you think the bible is not right or trustworthy, it proves christianity wrong also. You can’t win.

          • Ahhahahaha!

            Why would you believe the Bible? You just told us it’s baloney! if it’s baloney, how do you know what Jesus believed about evolution?

          • I’m making no claims here.

            I’m trying to understand your argument, which you’ve based on a document which you don’t believe. Right?

          • my point is simply, that if you believe the bible it makes no sense, if you don’t believe the bible, it makes no sense also. You can’t win.

          • Here’s your argument.

            1) Jesus didn’t believe in evolution. It says so in the Bible.

            2) The Bible is BS.

            Question: if the Bible is BS, you have no idea what Jesus believed, do you?

          • the point is that people who do believe the bible, can’t explain why Jesus believed in creation. What i believe is not very relevant. Logic works by itself, it doesn’t need my opinion.

          • What you believe is “not very relevant”??…………LOL!

            Um……….OK…………, set and match.

          • What you can’t do is explain why you (on the one hand) believe what you think it’s claiming about Jesus and (on the other hand) dismiss it as total BS.

            You’ve trashed the citation for your own argument. Can’t you see that?

          • Try not to move the goalposts.

            We’re waiting for you to explain why you accept, at face value, the claims made by a document which you consider to be false and untrustworthy.

          • That would be you. I’ve asked you multiple times to answer a “simple question”. Now you want to make this about me? Sorry.

            I’m simply trying to understand the “logic” in your argument. Why are you using a source which you claim is false?

          • You can’t explain why you’re citing a false document to support a claim about what Jesus believed.

            You have no idea what Jesus believed. You can’t. The document on which you’re basing your claim is false.

            And you talk about “logic”.

          • why don’t you answer the question, because it’s all about what you and your fellow christians believe. Can’t you understand it’s not unlogical or impossible to believe in a book that’s wrong?

          • If I say to you “Document A is nonsense” and then…..”it says in Document A, that some men believe that the moon is green”, why would you believe that “some men believe the moon is green”?

            I’ve just told you that the document from which I’m quoting is unreliable.

          • This is not about what I believe.

            This is about what you believe, since the argument proposed at the top of this thread is yours. Own it! I’m trying to understand it. That is the dynamic here.

            You make the bald statement that “Jesus did not believe in evolution”. Logically, you cannot know this if the source you use to make this claim is (according to you), false.

          • Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; 33but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven.

          • Again, another logical fallacy.

            Try not to confuse my rebuttal of your logic and refusal to engage your rudeness with a denial of God. Jesus also tells us not to cast our pearls before swine.

          • No. I’m carrying out the Lord’s command not to place things of beauty in front of those who are not receptive and will not value them. I’m quoting Scripture. That’s what you were asking for, isn’t it?

          • okay. Look. I have a suggestion for you. Go back to the seven points of my logical proof. Ask yourself honestly if you agree with them, one by one. I’d like to know where you disagree. I’m curious.

          • Or try this. Do you agree that the proof makes sense if you believe? If so, then the only logical outcome must be that you discovered that you believe something wrong, and you should abandon your believe, (if you care for truth that is).

          • Why haven’t any other animals evolved to a point of parity with man on some level? Did God give us thumbs because we’d have the intelligence to use them or did thumbs evolve because of our intelligence?

          • qui bono. Try someone who has no direct advantage in believing what you believe, try any serious book on evolution. Read it with an open mind, think, and than decide. Furthermore is it logical to believe in a worldwide conspiracy of all those nasty, false scientist, who hide the truth from te public? They could never get away with it.

          • Who said anything about scientists hiding truths? Science is a method for explaining natural phenomena–it’s not philosophical and cannot explain everything. Also, again, what some scientists believe at any given moment is of no value: scientists have believed several things over time which were proven true, false, true, false…etc.

          • It’s animalistic behavior, Sharon, not a result of self reflection. Dolphins don’t reflect on how they can be the best dolphin possible. Elephants don’t volunteer to do charity work out a sense of altruism.

          • Re: “Dolphins don’t reflect on how they can be the best dolphin possible”: Why do you think this? Dolphins will hold an ill member of their pod to the surface to breathe. Dolphins aid mothers and their new calves.

            Re: “Elephants don’t volunteer to do charity work”: Lactating elephants in the wild have been known to adopt orphaned calves. Sounds “charitable” to me.

            You appear to have the need to elevate humans above all other species on earth.

          • OK, it’s not a “proof”, except maybe in your own head but yes, I disagree. Obviously. Right at point #2.

            Your use of the terms “evolution” and “creation”. You propose them as two mutually exclusive alternatives and you make the fatuous statement that “Jesus didn’t believe……..” which is silly. Jesus is God.

            Here’s a passage of Scripture for you to think about……..“always remember that with God, one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as one day”. Think of that in relation to Genesis and the story of “creation”. “On the first day……etc”. Your problem is that you’re hung up on human timelines and human definitions. God is eternal. He is the alpha and the omega. He had no beginning and had no end. If the earth’s creation required a million years, what is that to God? Does that mean that the earth wasn’t truly created but instead “evolved”, ergo there’s no God? That’s illogical and a very dangerous road to travel but you appeared to have taken that road with great alacrity.

            Evolution is a mechanism of progression, not a point of origin. It proves nothing and time, in human terms, has nothing to say about God’s existence. We are body and soul. Flesh and spirit and the spiritual does not evolve. Look around you at the evidence for the spiritual, the supernatural. Read of the miracles of God’s grace and look at the evidence for the diabolical. Above all, think about the passage of Scripture above. God’s ways are not ours.

          • There are multiple passages in the New Testament where Jesus quotes from the early chapters of Genesis in a straightforward, historical manner. Matthew 19:4–6 is especially significant as Jesus quotes from both Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24. Jesus’ use of Scripture here is authoritative in settling a dispute over the question of divorce, as it is grounded in the creation of the first marriage and the purpose thereof (Malachi 2:14–15). More importantly, there is no indication in the passage that He understood it figuratively or as an allegory. If Furthermore, in a parallel passage in Mark 10:6 Jesus said, “But from the beginning of creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” In the statement “from the beginning of creation”3 Jesus was saying that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation, Jesus also spoke of the devil as being a murderer “from the beginning” (John 8:44). It is clear that Jesus accepted the book of Genesis as historical and reliable. Jesus also made a strong connection between Moses’ teaching and his own (John 5:45–47), and Moses made some very astounding claims about six-day creation in the Ten Commandments, which he says were penned by God’s own hand (Exodus 20:9–11, 31:17–18).

          • There is also something extremely relevant here. If there was no direct and perfect creation, (Adam and Eve in paradise) there was no original sin (The first disobedience), and no need for a saviour. The whole of christian theology is grounded in the believe of direct and perfect creation. If this is proven to be flase (as you aknowledge), the whole of christianity falls. I win again.

          • Whoa…..I acknowledge what? Logic isn’t your strong suit and you like to toss around terms which mean whatever you want them to mean. “Direct and perfect creation”? What is that? If God is the Creator, then, by definition, creation is “direct” and “perfect”. God is outside of time. And the idea of original sin is not, I repeat not, grounded on the necessity for God creating the world in a time-frame of human (including your) understanding.

            Did you come here to “win”? I guess I was right with the “pearls before swine” reference.

          • Evolution is a mechanism of progression (your own words). So you acknowlegde that you don’t believe what jesus obviously seems te believe (evolution is direct and perfect). Who’s got it wrong?

          • “I don’t believe what Jesus obviously seems to believe”……….LOL?? What sort of imprecise blather is that? Does Jesus really believe what you say He believes? Or is this just you putting words in his and my mouth and acting as His spokesman?

            Your argument is based on a false dichotomy which you’re flailing manfully to maintain; i.e. if evolution occurs, there’s no God. I disagree.

          • Naturally, there was a beginning of creation, just as it will have an end and naturally God is the author of creation and “made them male and female”. All I ask is that you ponder that passage………“one day is as a thousand years……”.

            The human intellect is finite and limited. God is not.

          • You’ve given me your personal understanding of some passages of Scripture. I’ve proposed another for your consideration. You’ve dismissed it.

            That’s the definition of “cherry picking”.

          • If the bible is all about understanding, interpreting, and can’t be taken literally, why even bother to read it. Not even the pope gets it right, right?

          • Interestingly enough, I’ve read recently that near the actual “big bang”, the universe right now is in its sixth day terms of how time has progressed from that point. Fascinating….

          • When did science prove them wrong? I’m just curious, where is that missing link? Why is the amount of sleep or caloric intake needs not changing? Why haven’t monkeys and apes started building homes, creating alphabets?

          • Science doesn’t pretend to have all the answers. It is quite sure about this: evolution has happened, (true, not all the pieces of the puzzle are there, but there are more than enough pieces to know the evolution-puzzle makes sense. In fact it’s the only thing that makes sense, given the observed facts (dna etc….).

          • But you pretend it does. Science is a method for testing natural phenomena. At the point something cannot be tested–e.g. evolutionary THEORY–it is no longer scientific but speculation.

          • A scientific theory is not a ‘guess’; a scientific theory comes together based on facts. The “theory of evolution” is a proven fact, from the study at the macroscopic scale of fossils preserved in sedimentary layers. down to the molecular scale of DNA shared by closely related species.. Mainstream educated Christians have no problem with understanding and accepting evolutionary processes.

            Definition: “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.”

          • A theory isn’t a fact, Sharon, by definition. And, no, evolution is not a proven fact. There are enough holes in the “man-ape” link that honest evolutionary biologists admit that it’s not proven and it is problematic.

          • A scientific theory is comprised of facts, dear…and yes, evolution is based on proven facts. Sweetie, you are thinking of the word ‘theory’ as used in everyday language–reread the scientific definition of ‘theory’–a ‘scientific theory is not a guess.

            Brian, I can hear this thought in your religious-mired noggin’: “I have no idea that gravity, atoms, and germs are also “theories” in science, because I get all my information about scientists from listening to mega-church preachers and other cult leaders, who profit from my faith and reading creationist propaganda.”

            Do you also have the silly notion that the earth is only 6,000 years old? That dinosaurs coexisted with humans? That fossils were all deposited during the mythical Noah’s Flood?

            Re: “man-ape” link”: Honey, humans, chimps, great apes, gibbons, monkeys, orangutans, lemurs–we’re all primates, who share a common ancestry. We can demonstrate the close relation of the modern primates through DNA, e.g., 99.9% DNA shared between Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and 98.7% DNA shared between humans and Bonobo chimpanzees. You do know that modern humans of European and Asian descent may carry Neanderthal genes?

            We have a good fossil record of transitional hominids–prior to Homo sapiens sapiens, i.e, modern humans, there was Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo denisova, Homo floresiensis, and of course, the recently renamed Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

            There is no argument among evolutionary biologists that life on earth has evolved and that DNA demonstrates that species share common ancestors. What is discussed and researched are the mechanisms behind evolution–gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium, adaption, and effects of habitat changes.

            I recommend a good lay site on evolution:


          • Evolution is real. Yes.

            The Catholic Church has also said that the Old Testament isn’t something to be taken literally.

          • Pray for it. It is a gift given to us when we ask for it, not when we try to reason for it.

            If you reject the Bible, leave it alone for a while. Christians lived without the Bible for 400 years. There was no Bible, only inspiration from Christ and the lives of other saints, (and the authority Christ gave to the Church to teach the faith). Jesus fed the yearning, hunger and thirst of souls like no one before Him.

            The truth is, many scientists believe in God (and Jesus). Look up Jerome Lejeune, geneticist who discovered trisomy 21, Copernicus (heliocentricity) was a priest, Gerald Schroeder, Jewish, was a nuclear physicist who illustrates umpteen holes in the theory of evolution in his book, Genesis and the Big Bang. But even if you believe in evolution, there is still much mystery to be solved around it, and we cannot do it by forcing pre-determined round pegs in square holes, just to “prove” that there is no Creator. Scientists who do this are afraid of the truth, and therefore are not true scientists, are they?

          • Add trust and confidence to your prayer.
            You were led here today for a reason 🙂

            May I suggest some good reads, that I found thought provoking:
            “Life of Christ” by Fulton Sheen
            “I Burned for Your Peace-Augustine’s Confessions Unpacked” by Peter Kraft
            “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis, former atheist

            God bless.

          • you’re nice. Thanks for your concern; but you’re missing the point completely (the logical proof mentioned above).

          • Thank you, too.
            But please, remember that it is still the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution.
            A Law works perfectly every time, no holes.

            As to your statement, “why would every scientist around the globe for many decades now, accept evolution as a proven fact.” Answer: they don’t.

          • sure, some people still believe the earth is at the centre of the universe. In the hidden forests of south america , i’m sure there are still people who believe in a flat earth. Do you have any idea, what a scienstist would do to prove evolution wrong. Nobel prize and eternal fame. They don’t because they have no case. The facts are too strong.

          • Dear Marke,
            There are none so blind as those who WILL not see.

            As I said earlier, Copernicus, a Catholic priest, discovered that the sun is at the centre of our solar system and that the planets, including earth, revolve around the sun. I assume you know Galileo, another Catholic, discovered that the earth is round. Let us agree that those who still believe that the earth is at the centre of the universe believe quackery, just like those who do not believe we went to the moon.

            With all due respect, at the centre of the universe that you have built for yourself is your rejection of Christ, with the 2 planets of pre-determined, bogus science of a non-existent Law of evolution and willful, anti-Christian biases rotating around it. I will pray for you today.

          • Thanks for praying. But you have to ask yourself some serious questions. The first one being why do you believe in scientist if they tell you a, b, c, and d., but refuse (without knowning the facts) to believe them if they tell you e (evolution) is true. It is because you’re not really interested in what is true, but want to keep on believing, no matter what. Don’t you see that the church, (to give you another argument) has changed “it’s’ truth a zillion times, already, and is doing it again today? That is what your discussions are about, right? How can my faith be true, but still, the church changes it all of the time. Try this answer: it’s not true to begin with. Makes a lot more sense than your sterile discussiond about the pope, modernism etc.

          • What if i told you, that i’m an ex-catholic, and that my motivation is to save all you sisters and brothers from a dangerous and foolish idea.

          • My evidence is this, why would every scientist around the globe for many decades now, accept evolution as a proven fact. It’s perfectly logical to imagine christian or islam scientist to deny it, if they could. They don’t, so the evidence must be pretty impressive right?

          • Dear Marke
            1.- That is no evidence at all
            2.- I am a scientific myself (so if you want to keep on this discussion, let us do it in scientific terms)
            3.- Evolution is still a theory, that is, almos everything is proven, but not everything (e.g. Aptinus Beetle, which remains a riddle for scientific community up to know).
            4.- Even accepting Evolution, there si no contradiction at all with the fact of a Creator God (creationism is waht you refer to, kind of ideology present in America, but almost unknown here in Europe).
            5.- In any case, there is even a bigger fact, Marke: Arguments of faith are strong enough for the one who wants to believe, weak enough for the on who wants not. Remeber when Jesus said to the rich man after death “if they do not believe Moses and the prophets, they would not ever believe if a dead man resurrects from the dead”. Now he is resurrected. If you want true arguments for believing whicg appeal to an intelligent man like you, you may read “The religious sense”, by Luigi Giusanni. Maybe then you will see you are focused in a very small matter (not even contradictory with faith). Maybe you can then open your mind. Faith and reason are both created by God, they just cannot contradict.
            But, most of all, your heart. One cannot believe if it is not with the heart.

          • i’m sorry, but you’re wrong. Jesus believed in creation. in fact, cristianity says he came to save people from the consequenses of original sin. That only makes sense if you believe in direct and perfect creation. So, if you believe in evolution (with a few question marks), you have to accept that jesus got it wrong, and can’t be God.

          • Oh yes of course, you are right Marke! I am totally wrong! Thank you so much for teaching me the path of truth and righteousness! Now I feel free.

          • Before you tackle scientific theory, try to sharpen your English spelling and punctuation. They may be a bit more within your ken.

          • ad hominem. I’m not english. Can you express yourself faultless in a language that is not your own? Arguments please.

          • good argument. I’m impressed. I’m comes down to this. I believe. I want to believe. I will believe. I’m not interested in facts. I’m not interested in logic. I’m not interested in rationality. Let me believe and f**k of. Impressive.

  11. Moderator(s): Mr. Duvivier is a troll. His opening “Hey all you christians (sic) ….” really tells us all we need to know about his “reasoning.” It is painful to have to plow through his pseudo-intellectual garbage to find honest posts from those interested in discussing reasonably the article in question here. Please pull the plug on this pest.

    • I understand why you want him gone, but there is a good reason to leave him on the site; one of the weakest areas of nearly all Roman Catholics is in the debating with unbelievers and Protestants. Iron sharpens Iron and if we live our lives in a way that never allows for disagreement (outside the normal Catholic arena) we are weakened. We learn about our faith by defending our faith against all comers, just as in the first 700 years of the Church, the Church had to defend the faith against many false mini-gods.

      • Duvivier was merely a pest, not someone sincerely interested in debate. You could show everything he says to be perfect nonsense and he would simply invent more nonsense to throw at you. His posts were so frequent that they were making it difficult to find the serious ones. I for one am very happy he is history.

        • I know what you mean. This is the only site like this that I comment on; I really don’t have anything new to say that everyone doesn’t know on Christian Sites. I comment daily on some of the roughest anti-christian sites and battle every day with the atheists. When I was a non believer I thought atheists were awfully smart, but when I became a Christian and studied and learned at the feet of Jesus, I realized how weak the atheists were. Debating them is actually like shooting fish in a barrel, if they actually debate. Of course they don’t want to debate, they want to vent their hate; but I learned from years of running a business that people may act one way, but they are listening, even if they don’t act like they are. So I get the message out, in spite of all the hate. That same method is what brought me to believe, my friend would not give up on me and never listened to my objections. Funny thing was; when I became a believer, I could remember everything he ever said to me about God. I was listening. God bless you.

          • It’s nice to read your story. I agree with what you say about atheists’ arguments seeming so erudite….until you think about them a bit and realize they are mostly sophistry. Lately I’ve noticed several atheist relatives adopting a new tactic, viz. shouting down anything said to them and refusing to even listen, much less debate. It’s curious how this approach mimics that of so-called social justice warriors in the political realm.

  12. In America, and I bet in Europe, the ratio of priests to PRACTICING Catholics now is better than it was before the Council. Do we need a married priesthood, or a truly believing Church?

  13. Married clergy has long been the law among the Eastern Catholic Churches except those from India. The Latin Church is not in need of a married clergy. I have no problem with the ordination of former Anglican clergy for the Ordinariate. However, we don’t need it in the West.

      • No, but the reason for the predatory homosexuals was that the bishops let them into the seminaries in the first place. They did not go after little kids, but pubescent boys.

  14. Honestly, at this point, with so many priests exhibiting very obvious homosexual tendencies, which the Church teaches are “gravely disordered,” I believe this might shift His priesthood to a holier footing. I know, personally, that I would gladly become a priest in either of the TLM or Maronite traditions. I gratefully am part of a TLM FSSP parish.

    “In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10]”

  15. yes I think we can’t assume that Francis speaks of trad marriage. Can you imagine 2 sodomites and an adopted sex toy? and remember in this country, we didn’t redefine marriage, we undefined, there is no definition. Sodomite and lamb? Heterosexual and multiple playmates? Can of worms. Thanks francis for making the hard choice to serve Christ so much easier for all us weaklings. He is just so blatantly anti-reason, anti-God.

  16. This argument is different from most of the arguments in the Church today; most of the 23 Catholic Churches allow married priests and of course the Bible tells of some of the Apostles being married. I believe the Roman Church used to allow married Priests.

  17. I think too much is being made of this particular issue. Maike states at the end of her article, “…it may well be another step toward the attenuation of the Catholic Church’s own distinctive identity and unique charism…” The statement suggests she thinks or believes the Catholic Church is limited to the west and, thus, ignores and slights Catholics of the other, eastern, admittedly smaller, rites. As has been stated in comments to at least one previous article, these other rites, which already permit married priests, provided the wedding occurs prior to the seminarian being ordained to the Transitional Deaconate, are not lesser stepbrothers of the Latin Rite and, thus, should be afforded the acknowledgement, equality and dignity they deserve. Because the Catholic Church is more than the Latin Rite, the “distinctive identity and unique charism” of the CATHOLIC CHURCH will not be changed. Yes, that of the LATIN RITE will be altered, but not that of the Church as a whole. We must also remember first, at least one of the apostles was married and, at the Last Supper, was ordained priest by Jesus Himself and, second, in the Latin Rite married Anglican
    “priests” who convert to Catholicism may be ordained as Catholic priests. And, third, whether priests are married or not is a DISIPLINE and NOT a doctrine or Magisterial teaching. I have long believed there should be disciplinary uniformity across the entire Church. The lack of this uniformity creates an atmosphere of disunity within the Church as evidenced by Maike’s statement. Therefore, married priests should be allowed OR not allowed in EVERY rite. Personally, I believe tgat an unmarried, celibate priesthood woukd create far fewer problems.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...