If YOU could.change the Catholic Church


Thank you, very well done

God Bless you and may Mary help guide your life



If the church is going to continue to claim that God is guiding the church then they ought to let God guide it. In the old testament when they needed to make a decision they relied on a practice that to the onlooker would merely be chance (drew lots). The apostles used lots when they replaced Judas, Joshua used a chance method when they found the person who looted Jericho, and King Saul was chosen by chance. As far as I can tell God isn’t really involved in deciding who the next pope will be.


If you knew what the process of choosing a new Pope entails, you would realize that the Holy Spirit is definitely involved in the selection.


Thank you:grin:

Firstly there is no actual such thing as “chance”, luck [good or bad; or coincidence: GOD is always in charge and Divine Providence always in action. years young,

Now 2,000 we live in a TRUE Culture of DEATH [legislated abortion], so are you suggesting the the Church should acquiesce to the new morality? That She should be come-along to GET-along?

And you’re completely wrong about the Holy Spirit and Pope selection. BUT we must also accept that God does not think exactly as we do. Isi 55: 8-9

No man is elected Pope that the HS has not, often for reasons beyond our at least immediate comprehension, permits to be His Pope.

GOd causes all good things and tolerates evil as a consequence of freewill choices.

God Bless you,


If you limit the scope of what God causes (and I do), then I don’t think you can also hold strictly to the first statement above.


Well, the Church has been doing this, or an equivalent, for 2,000 years and it hasn’t killed the priesthood; expanding it likely will not do so either.


crux.com has a good answer for this situation, and covers more questions raised here.

“in my experience, a freewill offering for a wedding most commonly turns out to be $100 or $150.”


In the Latin Church it would. Our tradition practically demands daily mass for example. The Latin Church demanded continence from its marrow priests back then. How many would be willing to marry only to remain continent?

Or even on a softer tone, how many would abstain from relations with their wives on almost everyday because of having to say daily mass?


I would change myself. I am the only problem with the Church that I can control.


Hello Patrick,

  • In looking at my previous response it appears as your dreaming up counter arguments to arguments I never made. I’ll go ahead and respond to them anyway.
  1. To draft or enact (a law).
  2. To bring about, establish, or influence by means of legislation: legislate safety standards;
    I’m not aware of the US enacting any laws which would require women to get an abortion. Because of Democrats there has been some legislation which provides help to women who have children.
    With regards to new morality I would think that would include the morality that the church dreams up. Are there any laws that if the CC was in a position of power that it would enforce that were not dreamed up by them?


Hmmmmm, Did I not say "all GOOD things?

God Bless you,



God Bless and enlighten you friend



You did. Do you still say there is no such thing as bad luck? Hmmmmmm, ie. :thinking:


Your issue is that your view of the matter is way too narrow, I am off to Thanksgiving dinner; will respond further later.


Nothing changes in the doctrines, sacraments, values, catechism. This stays unchangeable.
But some adjustments are be needed in order to strengthen the Church worldwide:

  • First, clean the Vatican from those trying to corrupt it. (no mercy, God’ll take care of it)
  • Second, the Vatican should send orders to all dioceses, to re-promote the importance of all sacraments, especially the eucharist, confession and marriage among others.
  • Clean Catholic schools and colleges of reformists and liberal teachers (to stop the bending of God’s law where the heresies are spread. We serve God’s standards, not society’s. Period)
  • Organize more social events (big scale events like the JMJs) that would reach out to younger generations, and show them what the faith really is.


I DID:thinking: And here is WHY

Everything happens for one of two reason:

If it is a GOOD it is caused by God
If it is a GOOD-Choice by Us; choosing GOOD over evil:

God is GLORIFIED and WE are sanctified [offered grace]

If it is an EVIL: God permits it but does not cause it [His WAYS are NOT necessarily ours Isa. 55:8-9]

If it is an Evil that WE choose over the possible good:

God is still Glorified for having made possible for US to have chosen the good ; BUT we lose the grace opportunity

So again I share: GOD IS IN CHARGE:grin: Even when we might wish that he were not.




Many like to call this “bad luck”.


We have a shortage of priests in the US (other parts of the world have been experiencing an increase of vocations).

The shortage of priests means that it is going to be come difficult (varying by diocese) to have a priest in residence in all parishes (we already have priests saying Mass on Sunday in several parishes, usually in the hinterlands).

You seem to presume that married priests must say daily Mass. Daily Mass is a luxury, not an absolute. There is no particular necessity that a married priest say daily Mass. What is needed is priests to say the Sunday (or Saturday evening) Mass.

A comment has been made that married priests could well be individuals who are older (one suggestion is no on under the age of 50; I would probably put it closer to the age of permanent deacons). Point - many if not most would already have work - a job, or possibly a career - so they are not adding to the cost burden which all dioceses have. They would be there for sacraments and Mass, and definitely not “full time”.

There was an exchange few years ago, fairly strong, between Peter Kreeft and another individual. I forget whether the other was a Canon lawyer or a theologian (or possibly both). The matter being disputed was the issue of whether or not married deacons were required to be continent.

The short answer came, not from two scholars, but from Rome. Rome had no interest in pursuing that discipline with the married deacons.

As it is a discipline, the same could be granted to married priests; or they could follow the Eastern Rite discipline, of continence for the day before they say Mass. It is not in any way an issue that is so great a stumbling block.

Currently, some deacons have a “day job”. Some are retired; some have a “day job” with the Church (Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers comes to mind). There is no reason that we could not have married priests with similar characteristics.


“The Code of Canon Law (#276) in the section entitled “The Obligations and Rights of Clerics” states the following: “In leading their lives, clerics are especially bound to pursue holiness because they are consecrated to God by a new title in the reception of orders as dispensers of God’s mysteries in the service of His people. In order for them to pursue this perfection, …they are to nourish their spiritual life from the two-fold table of Sacred Scripture and the Eucharist; priests are therefore earnestly invited to offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist daily…”




As noted, “Invited”, not “required” or “must, shall” or other mandatory wording. And as an entire quote, it is Canon law, which may be changed.

There were certainly questions brought up as the Church entered into the renewal of making permanent deacons. Some certainly presumed they would be in the parish “24/7”. Some are, some are not.

The possibility of having more married clergy in the Roman rite is on the table - as I understand it, for Brazil. Whether that is to come to pass is up to the Holy Spirit and to individuals so far above my pay grade as to be out of sight. The discussion, however, is not exactly new. And it seems, whenever it comes up, there are all sorts of objections, Part of that comes from narrow, linear thinking.

The Church does not move rapidly The change, if any, may come from this Pope, or from another one. Given that we have had married clergy in the Catholic Church since the beginning of the Church, it is not exactly a novel idea. Some react to married clergy negatively with “But this is the Church’s long standing practice”. Well, yes and no - long standing in the Roman rite, but not the Church as a whole; and in the Roman rite, celibacy only has been the practice about as long as it wasn’t the practice.

I don’t have a dog in the fight. I simply sit and watch. It is not a “right”, as no one has a “right” to be ordained. And most of the objections which I have seen are spurious. If the Church determines that it is a proper response to current needs, then it will expand beyond ministers converting.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.