Rocco Palmo, who writes the blog Whispers in the Loggia, noted two recent pieces in Commonweal on the subject of the future of the priesthood in the United States, our editorial and Paul Stanosz's Continuing the Conversation article. (The Stanosz is available to registered users only. If you haven't yet signed up, it's a brief process--and free.)

While Rocco seems to think the pieces are worth reading (they are)--he refers to the Stanosz article as "heady"--he targets a section of the piece for its "grave lapses of argument." Here's Rocco:

Regrettably, it must be noted that the piece does its point thedisservice of not placing the ordination of women and married men outof bounds, at one point condescendingly accusing the church's teachingand discipline on admission to orders of being "intransigent" -- as if,with the wave of a wand, Tradition could change and all our problemswould be solved.

In a word, hardly.

Despite these gravelapses of argument, however, it doesn't mean that a discussion of whatmakes quality -- and an increased emphasis in its favor -- cannot behad whilst simultaneously adhering to the parameters of Tradition withthe utmost reverence. In fact, even if it means taking a short-term hitin terms of numbers, an unassailably qualitative approach wouldmanifest a more substantive esteem for the priesthood and a greaterrecognition of the vocation to it, which is in itself a path to growth.With time, said investment would serve to restore more credibility inthe church than any excess of fleetingly superficial flourishes. Someplaces have learned this by heeding it, others have experienced itstruths the hard way.

History teaches us that, if anything, thechurch has received its greatest momentum and most enduring nourishmentnot from massive crops of candidates, but from those singular, intrepidsouls for whom the teaching of Christ and the exercise of hispriesthood provided the grace and strength to build upon the alreadyconsiderable gifts of a sound nature. Luckily, through the ages, thewitness of these is something that's transcended waves of ideology,scandal and other forces of difficulty and thankfully, in the unsungheroism of so many of our priests, it remains with us today.

Inlight of that, we owe it to our past and our future to build on thegreat riches -- spiritual, academic, pastoral and human -- that've beengiven us, as opposed to casting our hopes on a cheap fix. In therecruitment and tending of candidates, the external criteria mark onlythe beginning of the responsibility and challenge of sound priestlyformation.

Here's the part of Stanosz's piece to which Rocco is responding, the third-to-last paragraph of the article:

The well-being of any organization relies on its ability to attract thebest and brightest to its leadership ranks. This clearly isnthappening in the U.S. Catholic Church. The admission of women into theclergy by other denominations has raised the overall aptitude of theirseminarians, but Rome has ruled out this possibility for Catholics.While one wonders what effect optional celibacy would have on thenumber and quality of men entering the Catholic priesthood, Rome hasbeen intransigent on that option too. The Vatican appears to prefermodestly gifted celibate men over brighter, more capable women or menwho want to marry.

Two things come to mind. One: the Catholic Church already has a married priesthood. There's no reason discussing this should be "out of bounds." Second: it's not clear to me how describing Rome's position on these issues as "intransigent" is "condescending," or how this implies Stanosz believes "all our problems could be solved," as Rocco summarizes, "with the wave of a wand."