[enchantmentadm]

Pope Benedict protested his inclusion wrt Cardinal Sarah's book:  
https://sightmagazine.com.au/news/ex-pop...e-francis/


The problem wrt Card Sarah's arguments are that they are attempts to justify the requirement retrospectively.  The original argumemts were "sex is impure"/"girl germs" type arguments.  Just about everyone now admits that such justifications are untenable, so if the alleged obligation is to be maintained, new arguments needed to be found.  Unfortunately, they are just as unconvincing.  Time management ones no more work for priests than they do for lawyers, surgeons, police, soldiers, etc.  Here's an example of how clerical marriage, in the Latin Church can work:  https://catholicherald.org/local/papa-z-...ad-priest/

I infer, James, that you are referring to ritual purity. This has nothing to with sex being bad or impure or "girl germs." It has to do with separating the sacred from the every day. If I accepted your argument, I would have to believe that the Church imposed fasting before the Eucharist because food is bad or impure. (This may seem like not such a big deal now but until a few decades ago, communicants were expected to fast beginning at midnight.) It does not matter if Cardinal Sarah's arguments were not those originally used to justify celibacy if they are persuasive arguments (and I believe they are.) You cannot put the priesthood in the same category as secular professions and occupations such as medicine, law, etc. These occupations have nothing to do with the salvation of souls. A married priesthood does work in the eastern rites, which generally exist in countries and cultures that are more traditional and less secularized than the west. However, I maintain that eliminating the celibacy requirement in the western Church (i.e, the Latin rite) would result in a more worldly and secularized Church, which is exactly the opposite of the direction we need to be going in.