I’m a Catholic woman (44) married to an atheist, and we have one child. I was not born Catholic, but became Catholic in my sophomore year of college.

I am a bit divided on the issue of priests marrying and also women becoming priests. On the one hand we say “follow the teaching of the Bible” and on the other hand we say (when it’s convenient) “the Bible is just a guideline and needs to be adapted to modern times.”

It’s also getting tougher for the Catholic Church to find priests, but I don’t think it’s because of the celibacy; and sexist as this may sound, it’s much easier for women to be celibate than men.

I think the solution may be in the length of commitment. The vows for the priesthood, like marriage, are until death. I think if there was some way to make the priesthood a “temporary “ occupation (like the presidency) with an option to renew, this might encourage more men to be priests as well as avoid (or minimize) “slips.”

Personally, I hope Alberto Cutié remains a priest. After all, Peter denied Jesus three times and became the rock upon which the church was built. Paul used to kill Christians and became a saint. Although, I have my own issues with Paul:

1 Corinthians 14:33-35

As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

The Church will have a tough time getting around this if they want women to be priests.

The RCC leadership will not have a tough time getting around anything, bible or no bible if they decide to change the rules. I don't see them doing so with regards to women since the ones making the rules are all men. i.e. why give away power.

I can see them allowing a married man to become a priest. This change serves those in power since they have to have priest to run the business (this is NOT a knock but just a fact, i.e. that priest are key employees of the RCC and they have to attract new ones).

Now I don't see them allowing someone that is a priest already to get married. That would open up all kind of issues since he would have to date while he was a priest.

"

1 Corinthians 14:33-35

As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

I'm curious: Is there a biblical quote requiring women to attend "congregation of the saints"? If not, that suggests an easy solution:)

I don't think the statement "the Bible is just a guideline and needs to be adapted to modern times" is consistent with Catholicism. Catholics believe the infallible Bible is the word of God - we don't see it as entirely literal but we do see it as entirely true. What is this moment in history's special claim to moral sophistication?

But the Bible doesn't say that priests must be celibate. The Western Rite's requirement that they be is a disciplinary rule, not a point of doctrine. Besides - and I wish the article would have said this - there are married Catholic priests. They are common in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches (not to be confused with Eastern Orthodox, who are not Catholic). I sometimes attend mass at a parish where the pastor had a wife and grown children. He - formerly an Anglican clergyman - had converted and been ordained a Catholic priest. So the Church's position is not that marriage is inherently incompatible with priesthood, but that celibacy has particular benefits (and is possible with God's grace) and thus is and will continue to be the norm in the Western Rite.

I doubt the Church could ever decrease the length of commitment for the priesthood. I think it would be as impossible as allowing temporary marriages. For one thing, Catholic theology doesn't look at priesthood as a mere job but something that actually changes you (ontologically, I think): once a person is a priest they are always a priest. Second, without a radical commitment to God from the begging I doubt a priest is going to last real long. The marriage comparison is a good one. A temporary marriage would not only be shorter than a lifetime marriage but it would be a pale imitation - not just in length but in quality. "I love you" can never mean as much coming from someone who wants to promise you ten years as it would mean coming from someone who wants to give you their entire life.

I'm guessing there are other reasons why the priesthood will never be temporary - I'm not terribly educated on this stuff but I am sure it just doesn't fit. There may be changes in future centuries but it won't be that.

Fr. E. Bergman? If so, we may have been at the same Mass, RalphS.

Bending, I am open to correction on this point, but I think this Pauline admonition is more practical than theological. IIRC, men and women were more physically together in the new Christian worship - - in the same room - - than was typical in Jewish worship at the time, and the women were talking among themselves about the new situation. Did women go into regular Temple worship? This is more akin to not having a side conversation, even sotto voce, with your neighbor in the pew than a theological point. Again, I could be off base here, but I remember something like that.

I've asked a few nuns and priests about this and have gotten a variety of explanations but the bottom line seems to be that the Church interprets this to mean that women should not be priests. Of course, most nuns think this is rubbish and that Paul was crazy. (I’m inclined to agree.)

There are always more women at mass than men in every church I’ve attended. I, myself, am a Eucharistic minister (the majority of which are women in my church) and we have altar girls as well as boys. I think women will be priests someday, but probably not in my lifetime.

I’m familiar with the fact that Catholic priests can be married if they were married prior to becoming a priest. I do go back and forth a bit on this, but for the most part I don’t think priest should not be married.

Consider this scenario: a married priest’s child is very sick…high fever, etc. He and his wife decide they should bring the child to the hospital. The doctors have examined the child and are explaining to the parents how serious and life-threatening the situation is. The priest gets a call that someone in his parish is dying and needs last rites and he is the only priest they have been able to reach. He now has to choose to leave his own child or not.

Okay, the scenario is a bit over-dramatic, but my point is that a priest should never find himself in a situation where he must choose between his own family's needs or a parishioner’s. He should be there to serve the parishioners 100%.

Men didn’t want women in the work force either, but it happened. It will get to a point where there won’t have any choice…I just don’t think it will be anytime soon.

Doesn't a priest face the same situation if more than one of his parishioners are dying at the same time? What is the difference if one happens to be related?

Or if the priest himself is dying or ill, or out of town on sabbatical or pilgrimage, stuck in traffic, cell phone battery is dead...