(Quote) Paul-866591 said:
Didn't you catch the fact that he said the married priest were LEAVING CHURCH PROPERTY to their children. Or to put it in simpler terms, they were stealing church property and giving it to their children. So the Church was trying to protect its own property NOT trying to get their hands on the Priest's property.
If you want to continue pursuing the property issue, one of the Church's considerations is that the financial burden of having to pay married priests a wage sufficient to support his family would become prohibitive.
Yes both the apostate priest and the Passionist are fantasizing. The only evidence we have of an Apostle having been married was Peter who had a Mother-in-law. But there is no mention of his wife in any historical document so his wife was probably deceased when he was called by Christ. No evidence of any kind exists that any other of the Apostles were or had been married. So his statement that the apostles were married is pure unadulterated fantasy.
Although the unmarried priesthood is a mere discipline and could be changed, the possibility that the general discipline will be changed is minimal. So the claim by both priests that the Church has to face it and discuss it is more fantasy then reality.
We had Popes who played around with women and had mistresses. But since the earliest days of the Church a married priest could never be made a Bishop. In all the Eastern rites both in communion with Rome and the Orthodox will allow a married candidate to become a priest. But if they are not married before ordination they are prohibited from marrying. A married priest whose wife dies is prohibited from remarrying. No married person, even if he is a widower cannot be ordained a bishop.
The celibacy of the clergy arose from the monastic side of the Church. And there are so many practical values to it that far outweigh any financial considerations. The idea of serving two masters is one of them. A celibate priest does not have to concern himself with the practicalities of being the head of a family. It gives him the freedom to do things that a married man would hesitate to do.
As an example of this last; to date, since the civil war when the Congressional Medal of Honor was first created, only 7 or 8 military Chaplin's have been given that award. Every single one of them a Catholic Priest. And they did not win the award because they were safely behind the battle lines somewhere serving the men. They were right in the midst of battle, on the front line with the men they served, under fire.
Ask any military veteran who has been in combat and no matter what their faith tradition they will tell you that the only Chaplin's they ever saw at the front were Catholic priests. Because they had no families to worry about they were free to put themselves in imminent danger. Most Chaplin's of other faiths are married. Although they are not cowards, they are rarely in the middle of battle.
As has been mentioned in these threads, many married priests in Eastern Rites here in the states are forced to find employment elsewhere to support their families. That is because the congregations are relatively small and can't afford to pay them enough. If their work takes them away from the parish, they are not in a position to fully serve their congregations. A simple matter of arithmetic since there are only so many hours in a day.
These are just some of the reasons why any change is unlikely and the stories of financial greed on the part of the Church was a reason for the rule are pure fantasy.