That is good news! Was there anything put on the web about this? I'd love to read about this.

It seems there is almost an obsession with some here regarding Latin discipline based on mutable law. In the UGCC we ordain married men to the priesthood in the US, have done so for decades, and that's the way it is. The Latins now have as many married priests in North America through the Anglican pastoral provision as all of the Eastern Catholics besides the UGCC combined. While I don't like some of the recent curial comments, as I mentioned previously what is on paper may be one thing but the reality is something else. I do see the concerns of Orthodox observers, however, regarding potential duplicity in some of the statements and what happens "on the ground", and I also share those concerns. It seems some of the curia still have to catch up with understanding the magisterial teaching of their own Pontiff i.e. Orientale Lumen , etc.

Isn't language there a bit problematic? That is to say, it speaks as though anyone outside their own territory is in Latin territory, but they could in fact be in the territory of another Eastern Catholic Church.

I find it quite ironic that the Vatican seems to resent it when the Patriarchate of Moscow uses this terminology when faced with the presence of Latin missionaries on what they consider their "canonical territory", yet they quickly convoke it when faced with a tradition alien to their own, albeit from Eastern brethren with whom they are in union. What of infant Chrismation and reception of the Eucharist? The disconnect befuddles me. A married clergy among Eastern Catholics should not be a problem anymore. Openly gay priests, pedophiles...yes, but a chaste married clergy? Yikes!

Now there's a can of worms.

Excellent! Where did you get that information?

Notwithstanding the great sacrifice made by married priests, Catholic and Orthodox, I cannot help but wonder how celibate (specifically Roman Catholic) priests feel when their parishioners and even close friends advocate for a married (Catholic) priesthood. Are we inadvertently undercutting them and overlooking, under appreciating, the sacrifice that these men make for us? I do not wish to disparage the good intentions and reasons of those advocating for a married Catholic priesthood, but what are the effects of our words on those who have left the great good of wife and children behind for us? Should we not be cognizant and considerate of the human dimensions of these good celibate men?

Why would Roman Catholic priests concern themselves with how Eastern Catholics feel about a married Eastern Catholic presbyterate?

I think it's safe to assume that the parishioners in the question are not Eastern Catholics, but Roman Catholics.

Certainly the discussion of a married priesthood for Eastern Catholics cannot be completely separated from the idea of changing the Roman discipline of celibacy for Roman priests - not only do progressive Romans cite the Eastern example, but we Eastern Catholics often seem to propose that our discipline is so superior that it will or should be adopted by Roman Catholics.

Question: we claim to support monasticism, but the discourse about celibacy often makes it seem a much poorer option, imposed by force, rather than "the angelic life." We have never had a tradition that all celibates live in community, for that matter!

So I think it is reasonable to look at it occasionally from the point of view of a Roman priest, or a (celibate, non monastic) Eastern Catholic priest: DO we affirm that giving up a wife and children for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is a sacrifice made for God and for the good of all? Is it reasonable and possible for an adult (with support and prayer) to give up SEX for the sake of Gospel witness?

I doubt we will see a flourishing of monastic life until we can also answer yes to the above questions. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't ordain worthy married men, but we need to avoid undercutting those who give up even more to follow Christ.

And we should absolutely not undercut another church's disciplines if we expect ours to be respected.

P.S. I am not saying that having married priests undercuts other church's disciplines - but the way we present ours sometimes seems calculated to have that effect. We want our disciplines to be held in honor; do we extend that practice to other churches? The Christian East once claimed the right to excommunicate Rome for fasting on Saturdays; would we do that today?

Can you provide a link? (I don't want to get into a conversation about it on this thread, but I'd like to read up on it on my own.)

This point about 'canonical territory' is very well taken. The 'canonical territory' of the local Roman Church sui iuris extends to intergalactic space! The 'canonical territory' of my own Melkite Church is 'defined' as coterminous with the Ottoman Empire and Egypt! Have they not noticed in Rome that there is no longer an Ottoman Empire? Holy Writ deals with this problem most adequately: Infinitus est autem numerus stultorum.

That is hysterical!

Seriously, unless that issue is resolved - i.e. 'universality' - we will be unable to come to any resolution of the Great Schism.