59 Comments

• seanomelb | Mar 09, 2013, 05:57 PM EST

  Paul who stole the teachings of Jesus from James the brother of christ and tried killing James by pushing him down the steps of the temple is hardly a good roll model Gearoid. James was executed by Annabus Bar Annabus(high priest) in concert with Paul. The history of the period is more interesting than the propoganda provided in the new testament where the gospels of some apostles were deliberately deleted.

• SCVMalcolm | Mar 08, 2013, 10:53 PM EST

  P.S. I DO believe that Jesus would consider Sexism to be a grave sin, BTW!

• SCVMalcolm | Mar 08, 2013, 10:51 PM EST

  Oh for crying out loud! If Nary, the Mother of God and Mary of Magdella and the bleeding woman who touched the hem of Jesus' robe were not PRIESTS, then you expect me to believe that the new retiree Pope, given all for which he should be condemned to a life of shame, IS a priest? Those women did SO much more for my Christian faith than Benny did, BY FAR!!!

• Gearoid4 | Mar 07, 2013, 02:22 PM EST

  I agree that married priests were involved in the early Church and certainly the Bible did not categorically state that celibacy was automatically mandated for the priesthood. But Jesus and later St Paul implied that the Kingdom of God is best attained by us wholly concentrating on leaving behind the materialist distractions of this world. St Paul advised that while a married man and woman are concerned with the things of this life the unmarried man and woman are best positioned to devote all their time to the gospel..."and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.."(1 Corinthians 7:34). This is not to disparage marriage as it is a holy sacrament which is vital to the life of the Church but ordained priests and bishops are responsible for the spiritual well being of hundreds if not thousands of people. Thus their duty is to Christ and His Church which the celibate lifestyle can facilitate.

• AlunPalmer | Mar 06, 2013, 09:35 PM EST

  There's one major error in this article. The early church did not have celibate priests. This was introduced about half way through their history.

• SingleDonald | Mar 06, 2013, 07:13 PM EST

  Kilsally, This is typical Fundamentalist garbage! At least the Catholic Church differentiates between "mortal" and "venial" sins, though it usually exaggerates the "evil" anything sexual outside of marriage. I insist, there is a BIG difference between a liar and a murderer! Anyone who thinks otherwise is mentally & spiritually challenged. Also, "blasphemy" is free speech! I, and every other human being has a right to criticize a tyrannical god! For example, if a god feels we should be "sent to Hell", for the non transgressive acts I have described, he should get himself an existance, like we would tell a man to "get a life".

• merefalow | Mar 06, 2013, 05:58 PM EST

  the whole point has been missed ,what should count is how holy a man is,how much good he does,his humanity and caring for the poor and downtrodden,not dress in silks and satins and purples with gold rings,the church has lost its way,it bears no relationship to the jesus i have read about.When i look at these cardinals priests,i dont see him.I cant believe the depravity that has endured for centuries,the political manipulation,the crusades,the burning of witches,the spanish inquisition,the suppression of science,the failure to supress and condemn paedophiles,all of which has weakened the the church and undermined and tarnished the thousands of good and decent men and women in the church.the church of england has married men in it and they arent all bad.Good most of them just like the catholics.

• eiriamach | Mar 06, 2013, 03:26 PM EST

  Kilsally, Martin Luther King would not have deprived LGBTs of any civil right. Such laws are unjust by his criteria of "just law" and "unjust law." I'm not interested in King's or anyone else's judgment of private sexual morality. For that reason, SingleDonald's gossip about MLK and JFK does not interest me. The New Testament is clear in calling for faithfulness in sexual relationships AND for leaving the judgment of sexual morality to God. Those two admonitions apply to all sexual orientations, yet consistently heterosexuals violate this core teaching by condemning other sexualities while ignoring heterosexual adultery. It's an abuse of scripture to ferret out moral "rules" designed as warnings for particular historical cultures and to interpret them as applying to wholly different situations in our time. It's folly, for example, to find a condemnation of homosexuality in a scriptural warning to priests of Israel to avoid the sexual customs of neighboring tribes whose priests raped boys or had sex with male prostitutes in their temples. In so many ways we go wrong when we conjure up inherited moral codes to judge others! What a limited, fallible, human near-sightedness that is, so different from the prophets' visions of divine justice.

• IrelandNorth | Mar 06, 2013, 02:17 PM EST

  The ecclesia which styles itself the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church is right, but for the wrog reasons. Control of sexuality isn't unique to Christian orthodoxy. Where they get it wrong though is that instead of trying to sublimate a irrepressible impulse, they repress it instead, causing it to come out pervertedly. They really should read Freud.

• Kilsally | Mar 06, 2013, 01:55 PM EST

  singledonald - man condemns himself to hell by wantonly sinning - god see`s no difference between `little sins` and big sins - a liar and a murderer are both sinners and both unable to get into Heaven and as the bible states `all have sinned and come short`, that is why we need a saviour. Salvations is freely given by grace to us that are undeserving - some accept the free gift, others reject it as they like their sins - God as a just God will then have to judge who is pure and who is not - without Christ non are pure, but Christ is freely available to one and all.

• Kilsally | Mar 06, 2013, 01:51 PM EST

  eiramach - you do of course realise King was against homosexual lifestyles?

• SingleDonald | Mar 06, 2013, 10:46 AM EST

  Thank you, helmut365! Kilsally, I accept the idea of a Savior, but one who will not condemn mankind to "Hell", over minor to non transgressive acts. Such a deity would be a tyrant, not "all good, and all just". BTW, the correct term is "Evangelicals", not "Evangelicists", which I previously wrote. Eiriamach, we have disagreed on some points, but I appreciate your post below. As great as Martin Luther King was, he cheated numerous times on Coretta. Also, I have read that he was inconsiderate of his paramours needs, similar to JFK, after he became president. Sadly, MLK & JFK were filled with a sense of "entitlement", which, of course, means they felt they could take what they wanted, when they wanted it! This is not the way any man, or woman should behave. Ironically, I read that when JFK was a congressman, he was very considerate of his women's needs. His nickname then of "Mattress Jack" was not a reference to insensitivity in the bedroom, just of abundance! It's sad how, "power corrupts"!

• eiriamach | Mar 06, 2013, 09:26 AM EST

  SingleDonald, I think Christianity is ready for a new theology of sin. The 20th century gave rise to much re-thinking about sin and vice, which are social as well as, or even more than, individual. Is it possible to "love your neighbor as yourself" when you live in a culture that condemns people for their sexuality and encourages selfishness, exploitation, and greed (Romney's cult of prosperity)? Christianity was born out of the need to transform human culture, and today more than ever, we need a transformation from our culture of individualism and violence to one of mutual understanding, collective action, and inclusiveness. Theologians like Tillich and Martin Buber and Martin Luther King showed us that "sin is separation" (Tillich's words), sin damages the human personality with unjust laws that treat different groups differently (King) and sin is turning away from the world instead of engaging with the public life of our nation and helping to heal it (Buber). All of these directly contradict the doctrinal fundamentalism of today's Roman Church, which substitutes a "retreat" from "secularism" and sex for the work of cultural transformation. (So I agree with you.)

• Kilsally | Mar 06, 2013, 09:21 AM EST

  Singledonald - you have missed the point of the gospel. Heaven is pure and holy. The non pure and unholy cannot enter into heaven. From the fall of man in the garden of Eden, man has been both unpure and unholy and cannot enter into heaven, no matter how many good deeds they do they are still unpure, hence the need of a saviour.

• Kilsally | Mar 06, 2013, 09:17 AM EST

  hmm, yes it is a gift for those that are able but is not compulsory in scriptures. It says in 1 Corinthians 7 - "..to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." 1 TIMOTHY 3 says "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." and 1 TIMOTHY 3 "If a man desire the office of a bishop... A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober...."

• Curitiba | Mar 06, 2013, 08:22 AM EST

  Total rubbish. Celibacy was introduced into the Church in the Middle Ages in order to cut down on the costs to the Church of supporting large families of priests. That's all. There's no heavenly reason why priests have to be celibate. Priests still drank and smoked and swore. These are vices worse than having sex with your wife, in my opinion. Far from being a distraction, a good wife could be an enhancement to one's priestly duties and consequently attract more priests to the calling.There are holy orders dedicated to celibacy if that is what you want, namely the monks.

• McNamara31 | Mar 06, 2013, 07:54 AM EST

  Really wonderful, thoughtful, comments on this thread. The one thing that came out of the abuse crisis in the states was people for the first time wanted to research the early beginning of our faith. I remember being at a BBQ in 2003 were the topic of the early church's married priests came up, and most people weren't aware of that part of our history. Today things are much different, and more difficult for the Vatican to gloss over the centuries of history, like it never existed.

• helmet365 | Mar 06, 2013, 03:39 AM EST

  SingleDonald,You are right about these petty man made so called sins and rules,they are man made and result in guilt and of course power to them.. The church has to come out of the dark ages and cull the rubbish that has has been handed down for centuries and forbidden to be questioned. There is no such thing a sin,as humans we are flawed and incomplete."The Church must change or die", a quote from Bishop Spong.

• cillowen | Mar 05, 2013, 10:23 PM EST

  it has to do with snotty nosed kids stealing from the poor box and having pot parties with friends in the church

• falconflash | Mar 05, 2013, 09:14 PM EST

  Celibacy is good but a priest should be allowed to leave and start a family without any stigma. They would become deacons and offer great service sort of like a priest part-time....the parishoners should not have to pay for a priests child's braces or her college tuition but a deacon could earn a living and then assist the priests. Many priests would leave at around age 30 but the tradeoff is we'd have a lot more priests and deacons....

• SingleDonald | Mar 05, 2013, 08:56 PM EST

  eiramach, Let's add no "sin" to engaging in sexual fantasies, looking at Playboy/Playgirl, masturbation, or actual premarital sex to your list! The consensual sex should, as I always say, respect the needs of one's mate. If so, no exploitation takes place. The vast majority of Catholics believe in the need to "de-sin-ize" the above things. They see Jesus as a benevelont God, not some ego maniac control freak, who is such a busy body! I could not have any allegiance to a god who "sent people to Hell", over these non transgressions, unless they begged his forgiveness. Begging forgivness for these non transgressions leads to acute guilt, over human sexuality. That is unhealthy in itself, and should be avoided! Sadly the Fundamentalists, who call themselves "Evangelicists" DO believe that these things, unless repented for, will send people to Hell. These people are incapable of coherent thought, in their subservience to an ancient tome- the Bible! They see the word as clean, unchanging, black & white, which is absurd! Each part of the bible represents the points of view of its authors. GENERAL value is attainable, but NOT literal interpretation, in most cases. During the middle ages, it was a "sin" to be a banker. Try to do without banks today! Also, servile work was forbidden on Sundays. Most men worked hard as laborers, in Biblical times, and were entitled to at least 1 day off. Today, if one wants to do some work around the house, it is not a "sin". Common sense is surely lacking, among Fundamentalists, and old fashioned Catholics!

• faberm1 | Mar 05, 2013, 08:31 PM EST

  How totally bizarre this article is. St. Peter, the so-called "first Pope" was himself married. The RC Church is holding fast to something that wasn't even important to the founding fathers of the Church.

• eiriamach | Mar 05, 2013, 08:04 PM EST

  Although I do not think these matters should be decided by taking a vote, the opinions of Catholics, the people in the pews, are important. They show disconnection between the "official" RC position and the laity's thinking. Severe disconnection means that the bishops and conservatives like Kokoski have found NO persuasive arguments to change the minds of the PIPs. The latest poll, reported in today's NY Times, shows "Seven out of every 10 Catholics surveyed said the next pope should let priests marry, let women become priests and allow the use of artificial methods of birth control. Nine out of 10 said they wanted the next pope to allow the use of condoms to prevent the spread of H.I.V. and other diseases. Sixty-two percent of Catholics said they were in favor of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples. Catholics approved of same-sex marriage at a higher rate than Americans as a whole, among whom 53 percent approved." There's Kokoski's challenge -- to change the minds of the vast majority of Catholics. Half a century past Vatican II, Catholics still want to see the reforms envisioned by Vatican II. It's time to face the fact that the conservative backlash has obviously FAILED.

• eiriamach | Mar 05, 2013, 07:26 PM EST

  Kokoski's reference to Second Vatican Council is misleading. Vatican II did not mandate celibacy for priests--it very clearly did not. I recently quoted on another IC thread from Vatican II's Presbyterorum Ordinis, published by PPaul VI on the last day of the Council. It leaves qualifications for the priesthood and celibacy in the keeping of the Holy Spirit: "Truly this world, indeed weighed down with many sins but also endowed with many talents, provides the Church with the living stones which are built up into the dwelling place of God in the Spirit. This same Holy Spirit, while impelling the Church to open new ways to go to the world of today, suggests and favors the growth of fitting adaptations in the ministry of priests." "New ways" and "fitting adaptations" were a door open to needed change (a door that subsequent popes refused to move through), to the Holy Spirit doing new things, and discarding harmful traditions. This decree goes into detail about celibacy being a "gift" of "great value" though not originally part of the priesthood and still not practiced in the Eastern churches--as others have pointed out here. It is a discipline imposed--thus not treated as a "gift"--in modern times but changeable as necessary for priests to serve the faithful effectively. Apparently a BA in philosophy does not ensure that the writer can read an encyclical, or will bother to read any.

• MarkMary73 | Mar 05, 2013, 05:51 PM EST

  I'm sorry, but a "BA" in philosophy hardly supports the revisionist malarky this deluded dude is dishing out. The idea of celibacy for priests was created by dogma centuries after Christ died and the main reason for it was to insure that the lucre from the priests went to the church and not their families. There were married Popes,with children (besides the "out-of-wedlock" variety, which was commonplace)and there was no banning of women from the priesthood, either. Forced celibacy is as unnecessary and unchristian as it is unnatural. For heaven's sake, did this guy even glance at the history of Catholic dogma? Of the Reformation? And just what role, do you think, this perverse celibacy debacle has played in the history of sexual abuse by priests that the church bosses actively covered up and silently condoned for centurys and that continues to this day?

• The Commentator | Mar 05, 2013, 05:36 PM EST

  missswhisp, Although there are many good Christians in positions of trust and authority in the Roman Catholic Church, there are many who are pedophiles, pedophile protectors, sexual deviates, thieves, etc. For hundreds of years these criminals have hidden behind the church and the church hierarchy have spouted one form of religious privilege or another for not reporting these criminals to the civil authorities. In just the last month there are reports of criminal activity in the Vatican Bank, Cardinals abusing young priests, more pedophile activities, thefts by priests of church funds, and I'm sure there are still thousands and thousands of crimes committed just in the last ten years that are not made public.

• The Commentator | Mar 05, 2013, 05:09 PM EST

  I believe what I and many others want is a feeling of security and trust in the Catholic Church; a place we feel comfortable for our children and grandchildren to be safe and learn good Christian principles from persons of integrity, honesty, and openness. There is still a foundation of “good old boys” in the church; the group that has made the rules and changed the rules for their own benefit. Unless major changes are made to reflect the realities of the world today, parishioners are protected through intensive investigations into any allegations of criminal activities and annually scheduled lie detector tests as part of the process of purifying the church, then how can we believe in the Roman Catholic Church. We can certainly believe in God, but how the Word of God has been misinterpreted by the church is unbelievable. Just look at the vast differences in various religions. I believe the basic truths are very similar in most religions. It is the interpretations that have varied. It is disturbing to note that in many religions, it is male dominated and women are subservient. This is absolutely abhorrent and unacceptable. This blatant sexism is openly demonstrated in some religions such as those imposed by the Taliban. In others, it is in the shadows disguised as being God’s wishes, but in fact it is the rules written by male religious leaders. It was not that long ago that the Mormons religion was established by a charlatan and for the leaders pleasure, they could have as many wives as they wanted. Where in God’s Word are these rules written? Let’s return to basic beliefs and eliminate these foolish rules that limit ones participation in their church.

• bluemars | Mar 05, 2013, 04:54 PM EST

  The only reason the Roman Catholic Church insisted on celibacy was so that it could retain control of the property of priests with no inconvenient widows or orphans demanding their share of priestly earnings or estates. Until about the 16th century most priests were married and very few were celibate. And it was all down hill from there. At 10 popes were married and many more had illegitimate children. The ONLY reason it started is a financial one and you can see how well it has worked. The Church needs to be staffed by families and it needs women priests. Where did Christ ever say a human needed a penis to be a priest?

• seanomelb | Mar 05, 2013, 04:50 PM EST

  What a load of baloney!! Kokoski writes as if celibacy was the norm,whenin fact married priests were the norm until some pope decided otherwise.The church allows married priests when it suits. Married anglican converts and others are are welcome thus making a mockery of its own celibate rules. The church can only gain from marreid priests male or female.

• beachcomber | Mar 05, 2013, 04:33 PM EST

  so jesus wanted celibacy? did i read that right? if all christians are meant to be "christ-like" then...how would we ever further the species??? take all marriage out of the equation here, because marriage is a legal agreement and i can mix metaphors and say render unto ceasar what is ceasers...see, religion makes no sense, and they wonder why people are turning in their membership cards en masse, IN MASS. love god, not man, for he shall lead you far, far astray. yeah, i'm just adding some more absurdity to this absurdness.

• joanxis | Mar 05, 2013, 04:26 PM EST

  Misswhisp, Just because it's been the "norm" for several hundred years for priests and nuns to be celibate doesn't make it a good policy. What about before the edict. Was the Catholic Church in error up until that time?

• docmikey | Mar 05, 2013, 04:26 PM EST

  The author apparently hasn't met any married Christian pastors with children - they seem to be able to do God's work as well as the fine priests that I know. Marriage and children don't seem to me to be "disqualifiers" for ministry.

• helmet365 | Mar 05, 2013, 04:25 PM EST

  Vatican representative Professor Stephen Hind refers to Jesus reference to the eunuchs and the kingdom of heaven. Why don't they insist that all Priests do the same after ordination. It certainly would be in the spirit of Jesus teaching and at the same time eliminate any further debate regarding marriage and Church property and a whole lot of other problems. Does it effect your voice? If it does it could draw larger congregations to hear preaching, even just for a giggle.

• mowalsh | Mar 05, 2013, 04:19 PM EST

  Misswhisp. Get a grip on reality. If this is god's "chosen" Church, he must be rather upset to find it full of perversion, hypocracy and hubris. Christ didn't much like priests, by the way. He attended temple but he didn't perform any priestly rituals there. You can't deny that gay priests and bishops are rampant in the clergy, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, except that most are closetted hypocrites who condemn honest gay folk and refuse to grant them the right to marry. You can't deny that the Magdelene laundries in Ireland were, for decades, disgraceful institutions of slave labor that profitted both the Church and the state. You can't deny that Opus Dei is an elitist group of wealthy conservatives no more admirable than the type of superPAC contributors that Carl Rove is so proud of. You can't deny that Cardinal Ratzinger our ex- Pope, was personally responsible for perpetuating the sexual abuse of children by the many perpetrators that he refused to defrock. TELLING THE TRUTH IS NOT BLASPHEMING. Your Church is dying. More and more pews are empty even on major holidays. Churches and RC schools are being closed and sold off to pay for legal fees and settlements of cases brought by abuse victims. If you want to save your church, you should work to REFORM it. Stop pretending that the horrendous corruption is just a case a a few bad apples.

• mowalsh | Mar 05, 2013, 03:06 PM EST

  SeamusMartin, you're absolutely correct that celibacy is a fairly recent stricture that is all about thte Church's greed for property and money. It has nothing to do with Christ's legacy. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and it makes me wince to see the "princes" gathering to deliberate amid their opulance and finery. Don't expect the new pope to be much different from the last two, since the voting Cardinals were all handpicked by them. the Church will remin "conservative", which means it will conserve its wealth and its heirarchical, despotic, misogynist structure. It is now turning to the third world for recruits because it can better control uneducated congregants whose societies cruelly and shamefully oppress women and gay people. Moving from a mud hut or a humble shack into a pristine rectory or, eventually, a palatial archbishop's residence isn't a bad deal, and maintaining their elevated lifestyle will continue to be more important than serving needy parishoners or rescuing children from their colleagues' sexual abuse. Catholics who love their Church should stop remanticizing it . Educate yourselves! You can start by reading Catholic historian Garry Wills' new book "Why Priests". Maybe if you learn a little actual HISTORY, you'll give up your fantasies and insist on real reform. The Church today is riddled with hypocrits and misfits in the highest echelons and its philosophy is a far cry from that of Christ, as outlined in His Sermon on the Mount.

• The Commentator | Mar 05, 2013, 02:24 PM EST

  Donal O Neill I'm not sure if you are referring to my comments or others, but I am in agreement with you. The marriage of priests is not new and it would be a good move to go back to a time when they could marry. The next step should be for females to be able to be priests and be eligible for all positions in the Roman Catholic Church. The policies as to the sexual and criminal activities of members of the church must be to thoroughly document and report the activities to the civil authorities for investigation and prosecution. A requirement for an extensive questionnaire followed by a lie detector test before entering the priesthood or positions within the church. That followed by annual evaluations and lie detector tests for specific activities should be a requirement to employment.

• jhmdeuce | Mar 05, 2013, 02:22 PM EST

  "Regarding priestly celibacy and your comments, I don't agree. Three reasons: The apostles were married; the Greek Catholic Church ,which is a member of the Catholic tradition and recognizes the Pope as Pontiff ,has married priests, and the Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism and are ordained live a full married life." The only apostle who we can be certain was married was Peter. The gospel mentions his mother-in-law. We don't know, however, if his wife was living when he answered Christ's call, and his wife is never mentioned. Eastern Catholic priests may marry before they are ordained into minor orders. If they are married and their wife passes away, they may not remarry. The same goes for Anglican priests who convert to the Catholic Church. Priests in monastic orders in the Eastern Church cannot marry, and bishops are always chosen from monastic orders. Eastern Catholic priests in the USA are not permitted to marry. Married Anglican priests who convert and are ordained Catholic priests are not given parish assignments unless it is with an Anglican Rite Roman Catholic congregation. All others do pastoral care in hospitals, nursing homes, schools, etc.

• Dónal Ó Néill | Mar 05, 2013, 01:55 PM EST

  Regarding priestly celibacy and your comments, I don't agree. Three reasons: The apostles were married; the Greek Catholic Church ,which is a member of the Catholic tradition and recognizes the Pope as Pontiff ,has married priests, and the Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism and are ordained live a full married life

• The Commentator | Mar 05, 2013, 01:35 PM EST

  In light of the rampant homosexuality, child molestation, nun pregnancies by priests and a multitude of related sexual activities that have become public, I believe that if the Roman Catholic Church is truly determined to be clean, and not just more of the same false righteousness should require all of the hierarchy who are supposed to be celibate undergo castration and penis removal. Now, that would be a true commitment and in keeping with the official mandate of celibacy. It would certainly keep get rid of most of the sexual deviates now in the church and be a great deterrent to future problems. Let's see how many members of the holier than thou Roman Catholic Church hierarchy are truly dedicated and are what they say they are. I'm guessing the exodus would rival the 600,000 or so Israelite males between 20 and 60 who fled Egypt. So many of the "church rules" are written by men to promote and protect their interests and not for the good of the parishioners. Time for real change in the church.

• pilib04 | Mar 05, 2013, 12:56 PM EST

  Ok, Paul Kokoski, keep celibacy. Just start ordaining WOMEN!

• Nicomax | Mar 05, 2013, 12:49 PM EST

  You can stick with an inferior business plan as long as you choose, but recognize you could end up as a much smaller, more insular organization. Even Yahoo sensed it had to do something to get back on the right track.

• laallyboy | Mar 05, 2013, 12:25 PM EST

  Ta an "reformation" nua ag teacht anois, agus maith an tam e-----there's a new Reformation coming, and about time !

• Eschetic | Mar 05, 2013, 12:22 PM EST

  It's interesting to read a restatement of the current justification of a policy which is not only increasingly under reasoned attack but which has outlived its practical usefulness except for an ever diminishing cadre of the dedicated inner core - as witnessed by the increasing universally acknowledged problems recruiting the next generations of the faithful. Buried in the high minded verbiage of the article however, is the simple truth that priestly celibacy was a late arriving burden on the Church's administrators growing less out of religious inspiration than the crass protection of Church property as civil law evolved to protect discarded and/or surviving spouses in a world where the secular AND sacred communities were no longer fulfilling what we want to think of as their "Christian" responsibilities. As that same civil law has FURTHER evolved to make clear that local administration of church property does not include actual divest-able ownership of same, the core original reason for priestly celibacy has also disappeared, and the future health of the Church mandates that Pontifical leadership start to move it to a remnant position practiced only by select voluntary orders to whom it seems relevant for the reasons stated in the article and as an homage to the Church's past.

• SeamusMartin | Mar 05, 2013, 12:15 PM EST

  Peter, the first Pope of Roman Catholic Church, was married! The ability for priests to marry was good for seven centuries 'til it was decided "God" wanted the priests "married" to the church AND thus no worry for the church of the property going to a wife or offspring. The RCC has become a bastion for a large number of pedophiles. While priests marrying won't solve the problem completely at least give marrying decision to the individual. The RCC is only gaining converts in less educated areas of the world -- not North America or Europe! It (RCC) better get with a sensible program, bit the tongue and modernize!!!!!!!!

• bbj3212 | Mar 05, 2013, 11:54 AM EST

  Unfortunately celibacy is not the only issue. The Vatican is facing irrelevance if it does not change, there is too much power and corruption at the center. The Church - the People of God - I believe, is in good health however, the management cannot continue in this present form or it will become an irrelevance.

• Jerry Kelly | Mar 05, 2013, 11:46 AM EST

  Phósadh ár sagairt 7 ár mná rialta in Éirinn de ghnáth go dtí an 17ú hAois. Cinnte go raibh daoine naofa áirithe nár phós mar Pádraig, Brighid agus Colm Cille, ach níor lean ach cuid an-bheag an aontumha agus ba as a dtoil féin é sin. Toisc go raibh teaghlaigh oidhreachta eaglasta againn ag obair ar son na heaglaise agus ar son an phobail inár mainistreacha, inár gclochair, agus inár scoileanna, glúin i ndiaidh glúine, cuireadh “Oileán na Naomh 7 na Scoláirí” ar Éirinn. Níor tháinig an t-ainm sin chugainn as ádh nó as timpiste éigin. Anois, cad atá againn ach tubaiste bunaithe ar an dtasc pionóis nua neamh-nádúrtha seo? ////////// Our priests and nuns typically married until the 17th century. Yes we had certain holy people like Pádraig, Brighid and Colm Cille who didn’t marry, but only a very small portion pursued celibacy and that was by their own wish. Because we had hereditary ecclesiastic families working on behalf of the church and the community, in our monasteries, in our convents, and in our schools, generation after generation, Ireland was called “The Island of Saints & Scholars”. That name didn’t come to us by luck or by some accident. What do we have now but a disaster caused by this new and unnatural imposition?

• adrienrain | Mar 05, 2013, 11:37 AM EST

  Celibacy: as wholesome and virtuous as constipation.

• katieherk | Mar 05, 2013, 11:27 AM EST

  I thought this article was so refreshing!! Then I read all the comments below and was truly horrified by their remarks. Thank you CharlieM, for your comments. What has happened to our faith... first it Catholic bashing by some of these writers, then when something intelligent comes along, they're God bashing! Go figure. Keep it up Mr, Kokoski, brilliant article.

• Siobhan39 | Mar 05, 2013, 11:22 AM EST

  I can't help but think it's the money thing. What do you do with widows? Pension them off. Or just toss them off on their own. What if they want a divorce . . .

• joeburke | Mar 05, 2013, 11:21 AM EST

  Anyone who thinks that the Catholic church is not in need of change is in my opinion, delusional. Old people resist change because they are unsure of what change will bring. There are gays in the Vatican, and pedofile priests all across Ireland and the U.S. There are also very good priests in the church who don't deserve the negative attention that has been brought upon them. In Ireland the church used to have absolute power over the people and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is absolutely no reason why a priest should not be given the option of celibacy when entering the priesthood. These priests would then be better able to talk about the sacrament of marriage in a meaningful way. In any regard it really doesn't matter because the catholic church is doomed to fail. If serious and meaningful change was brought about 10 years ago, maybe then the church would have had a chance to survive. As it is with parishioners and clergy still resisting change, there is absolutely no chance. Its sad to say the least. Those who keep resisting change are sentencing the church to a slow death.

• CharlieM | Mar 05, 2013, 10:45 AM EST

  I see all the anti and pseudo Catholics have weighed in with their predictable opinions and modernist bs, so let at least one real Catholic have a word. A married priesthood will do nothing beyond giving the clowns mentioned above the satisfaction of saying, predictably again, "Told you so!" The clowns are not only wrong, they are boring.

• McNamara31 | Mar 05, 2013, 10:09 AM EST

  First, celibacy was a move "away" by the Roman Church, from our "original" Catholic traditions. And for, "Celibacy has thus become a time honored tradition that has been embraced and guarded by the Catholic Church for centuries as a brilliant jewel" The only concept, brilliant about it, was the amount of money the church perceived would be "saved" by priests casting off their wives, and families as they were ordered to do. This deviation away from our original tradition along with the the Roman affinity for fine ropes, palace's, and art collection, was not Christlike, it merely was the Roman culture and mindset overlaying itself into the religion left by Christ.

• Mousemess | Mar 05, 2013, 10:01 AM EST

  Teagmhail don Eaglais Chaitliceach na laethanta seo: Eirigh as an aontumha no lean ar chun neamhabharthachta no chun eaga. Is airithe nach bhfuil an aontumha nadurtha leis an gcuid is mo na bhfear sa 21u cead. Message to the Catholic Church these days: Give up the celibacy or continue on toward irrelevancy or toward extinction. It's certain that celibacy is not natural for most men in the 21st century.

• johnshiel | Mar 05, 2013, 10:01 AM EST

  how come we never hear from married clergy from other faith traditions re the role of a sex and family life in the efficacy of their ministries?

• TomSwinford | Mar 05, 2013, 09:56 AM EST

  Normally I would be more circumspect in commenting on such a central issue as priestly celebacy in the Church but Kokoski's fantasy defence of this abnormal and ultimately self-destructive practice does not merit circumspection. Good post darao.

• biggles008 | Mar 05, 2013, 09:43 AM EST

  priestly celibacy is unatural.

• JohnGalt | Mar 05, 2013, 09:08 AM EST

  If you don't playa da game, you don't maka da rules. Marriage is one of the 7 Sacraments, the ministers of which are the spouses themselves, according to the Church itself. Moreover, it is recognized as a "Natural Institution". Ergo, prohibition of such is "unnatural". As is condoning institutionalized pedophilia and child rape. John Galt

• darao | Mar 05, 2013, 08:56 AM EST

  A load of rubbish based on thinking that repression of sexual feelings is appropriate. Sexual liberation of women and men is a fundamental part of a healthy lifestyle. To think that repression of these feelings is somehow good fails to recognize the terrible human tragedy that has been imposed on men in the church for centuries. A loving church would recognize that people can balance their vocations and need not shun the wonderful experiences of life to be intensely engaged in their profession or vocation. Mr. Kokoski's whole article is built upon fantasy and liturgical drivel used as an excuse to avoid the obvious. Men and women should be able to marry, live happy loving lives with children while still being able to choose to be members of the clergy. Why anyone would want to spend all that time in fantasyland only god or harry potter knows.

• Eireannach | Mar 05, 2013, 08:42 AM EST

  The church is in crisis right now, very few young men are being ordained. And if it's not to go to the wall - for the sake of future generations, then I strongly feel that priests should be able to benefit from normal intimate relationships ie have wives and children. The world has changed and married priests would in many cases be happier and more fulfilled individuals, and have more insight into the needs of their 'congregations' etc