Outreach to Catholics who want "married priests"

I've addressed this before, but as follow-up to my articles about using the power of reasoning, discernment, and clarity of thought, I want to use this topic as another example of how one needs to avoid assumptions and "fuzzy thinking."

Just as the example I wrote yesterday where a person tells someone else "my book is like your Bible," there are hidden and erroneous assumptions (even though well intended) behind the opinion "there should be married priests."

The first problem is that there is a modern tendency to view even holy offices as "rungs on a corporate ladder." The implication is that "good candidates are being denied the job of priest." This is illogical and inaccurate thinking that is quite modern in its error. This is because modern people think that even a holy calling is a "job," "promotion," "reward," or "entitlement." No previous generations at all thought that way about the priesthood. This is because humans have always acknowledged a class of people, a category of people, who are called to and consecrated to God. This means that these consecrated people have as their only focus in life the service of God. Yes, in some faiths holy people are also able to marry, but they are not consecrated TO God. Even the Jewish priests, who were married (and polygamous, as the social customs of the time encouraged so that no woman would lack a family and provider) were anointed but not consecrated TO God. The Church founded by Jesus Christ has Jesus, as the Son of God, as the first consecrated priest. Jesus by his example was dedicated entirely to service of God. This is why all Catholic priests follow in the example of Jesus in celibacy, being entirely dedicated to God. Jesus did not "earn the top job." Jesus by being consecrated to God in total became the first of the Catholic priesthood, and First Priest. Generations of humans have clearly understood that Christianity was founded with the understanding that the priesthood would be established with Jesus as the model. It is a modern error in thinking that a religion is not entitled to have a priesthood of priests that are consecrated entirely to God.

I hope this point helps lend clarity. When people jump to the shorthand of discussing the role model of Jesus, the two sides are arguing without first acknowledging the groundwork that a religion is entirely entitled to have a vocation where the person is entirely consecrated to and dedicated to the service of God. If you say that the Catholic Church is not entitled to have a vocation that is entirely consecrated to God, you are actually violating human rights. Think about that. Being a priest is not being a CPA, or making VP after being an AVP. Human rights dictate that the Church has every right to have a vocation and function that is entirely dedicated to the service of God, consecrated and celibate.

The second error in logic, which is understandable, is that somehow married priests will, by having access to sex, be provided with an assistance in their vocation. That sounds a bit blunt but let's be honest that this is what advocates of so called "married priests" think. In part this is an innocent error because your minds are still in a quaint time where you think that a marriage provides for satisfaction in carnal needs, and thus gives the "priest" fullness. Well, you need only look at the record of divorces and cohabitation of the population in general to answer that question. Divorces, affairs, and pornography are now common in the "married clergy" of non-Catholic faiths. Thinking that marriage reduces stress to a priest is quaint and silly to the point of being laughable. First of all, marriage requires that SOME focus be placed on the spouse and family. This is in violation of the right of the Catholic church to ordain only persons who are 100 percent focused on their vocation to God. Second, far from relieving stress, the married priest is now in the social soup of the times. Do you want a homily from a priest who is also worried about finding his wife's G spot? I'm sorry to be blunt but that's what real dialogue based on reason requires. I don't want a priest who has to think about his wife's gratification in addition to his duties to God. There is the fine and honorable vocation of the deaconate, where deacons honorably marry and have children. I don't mind that they have the day to day problems of family and marriage, because they are not consecrated IN TOTAL to God. So I don't mind if a deacon takes time off from his vocation when his kid is hauled into jail for DUI. That is being a good father (hopefully) in being devoted to his family. His mental and literal "time out" is not at the expense of GOD. A priest is NEVER "off duty" to God. That is why it is not for everyone. Many thrive in the simplicity of being devoted to God 100 percent, where God's children are the parish and their flock, and they are not having to worry about a spouse or children, which by definition detract from their consecration to God. These are the men who the Church call "serene" in their vocation.

I hope this clears up some of the unspoken erroneous assumptions and the implied violation of human rights when the right to have a consecrated vocation that is 100 percent for God and only God is questioned. Thank you for your time and serious consideration of what I am explaining.