Catholic Question - Why don't the clergy marry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xavierlives
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Like the other posts said being married and being single have an advantage. I will give only an example.

A Celibate Catholic Priest - He has to tend only about himself. He don’t need money for his children’s education, insurance, health care for the whole family etc. He can be sent to poor people in Africa supported by the church and not asking for tithes to the poor people so he can convince people not knowing Christ. In other words less worldly wealth to think of.

A Married Clergy - Health care, insurance, the best school for kids, etc. Have to think material things for family. Its very difficult for a parent to tell a child I can afford a motorolla but not an iPhone.

I mean no offence to any married clergy but occasionally this can happen. This is based only on my observation on some married clergy in my country. Very strict in imposing tithes on members. I’ve talked to members that left their church because of forced tithings.
 
ralphinal said:
Nope. That is not what I said. What I said was that a priest cannot leave the priesthood, get married, then come back and be a priest.

There are times where a priest will leave the priesthood and still remain a practicing Catholic with no issues at all.
Click to expand...
Ok. I thought that was the case but it seemed like the post said otherwise.
 
rovimax said:
Like the other posts said being married and being single have an advantage. I will give only an example.

A Celibate Catholic Priest - He has to tend only about himself. He don’t need money for his children’s education, insurance, health care for the whole family etc. He can be sent to poor people in Africa supported by the church and not asking for tithes to the poor people so he can convince people not knowing Christ. In other words less worldly wealth to think of.

A Married Clergy - Health care, insurance, the best school for kids, etc. Have to think material things for family. Its very difficult for a parent to tell a child I can afford a motorolla but not an iPhone.

I mean no offence to any married clergy but occasionally this can happen. This is based only on my observation on some married clergy in my country. Very strict in imposing tithes on members. I’ve talked to members that left their church because of forced tithings.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree, it makes sense. The army would prefer a single man too,
 
rovimax said:
Do you mean single man as in lesser benefits for the family?
Click to expand...
As in, the Army or the Church?

The Army prefers single men and women because they don’t have to provide benefits to the family (healthcare, housing, moving expenses, death benefits, etc). Well, I guess everything but death benefits apply to a church as well.
 
ralphinal said:
Nope. That is not what I said. What I said was that a priest cannot leave the priesthood, get married, then come back and be a priest.

There are times where a priest will leave the priesthood and still remain a practicing Catholic with no issues at all.
Click to expand...
Ralph, burdensome because its not a requirement. Jesus and Paul did say being single is better, but they never said it in reference to being a leader of the temple/church.

We cannot pull out a verse and applies is where we want it and say ‘here, there it goes!’.

Like it or not, the fact remains that the celibacy for priesthood IS NON-BIBLICAL.
 
ralphinal said:
See this chnetwork.org/forum/moral-and-social-doctrine/%27it-ain%27t-just-catholic-priests%27-resources-on-shocking-statistics-of-clergy-sexu/?wap2site

Now, please tell me, did Paul ever tell anyone that it was better to be single? Did Jesus ever say it? If the answer to both is yes, then it cannot be seen as burdonsome.

Besides, no one forces anyone to be single or to be married. You have the choice. Just like in everything else, choosing one may limit other choices. Can a married man have sex with whomever he wants?
Click to expand...
Ralph, burdensome because its not a requirement. And you’re right to say “seen”…but by whom? you. YOU DEEM it to be unburdensome when there’s really no argument about it cos in the first place the instruction for priesthood doesn’t even exist.

Jesus and Paul did say being single is better, but they never said it in reference to being a leader of the temple/church.

If my father tells me “You may watch tv and eat at the same time, but he also once said its better not to watch tv”, who then are YOU to tell me NOT to eat and watch tv at the same time because YOU SEE it as nonburdensome to me?

We cannot pull out a verse and applies it where we want it and say ‘here, there it goes!’.

Like it or not, the fact remains that the celibacy for priesthood IS NON-BIBLICAL.
 
Mosacked said:
Ralph, burdensome because its not a requirement. And you’re right to say “seen”…but by whom? you. YOU DEEM it to be unburdensome when there’s really no argument about it cos in the first place the instruction for priesthood doesn’t even exist.

Jesus and Paul did say being single is better, but they never said it in reference to being a leader of the temple/church.

If my father tells me “You may watch tv and eat at the same time, but he also once said its better not to watch tv”, who then are YOU to tell me NOT to eat and watch tv at the same time because YOU SEE it as nonburdensome to me?

We cannot pull out a verse and applies it where we want it and say ‘here, there it goes!’.

Like it or not, the fact remains that the celibacy for priesthood IS NON-BIBLICAL.
Click to expand...
What don’t you understand. Paul and Christ both said it was better to be single right? I believe you stated that in your quote above.

If we are to be more like Christ, should we not adhere to more things Christ like?

It is in the Bible that it is better to not be married. Therefore, it is common practice for priests, in most cases, not to be married.

Your contradict yourself with your own words. Perhaps you have the issue that the Church is strict about this issue, if that is the case, well so be it. However, from YOUR own words, it is better to be single and it is stated in the Bible.

Priests are required to be more Christ like than the rest of us, sooooo why not bring as much of Christ’s and Paul’s lives into fullness and take it upon themselves to be single?
 
Teneas said:
What don’t you understand. Paul and Christ both said it was better to be single right? I believe you stated that in your quote above.

If we are to be more like Christ, should we not adhere to more things Christ like?

It is in the Bible that it is better to not be married. Therefore, it is common practice for priests, in most cases, not to be married.

Your contradict yourself with your own words. Perhaps you have the issue that the Church is strict about this issue, if that is the case, well so be it. However, from YOUR own words, it is better to be single and it is stated in the Bible.

Priests are required to be more Christ like than the rest of us, sooooo why not bring as much of Christ’s and Paul’s lives into fullness and take it upon themselves to be single?
Click to expand...
Not to speak for Mosacked, but I think the point was “better” means it is preferred, not required. I can say filet mignon is better, but that doesn’t mean I only eat it. I eat a lot of beans and rice.
 
Xavierlives said:
Not to speak for Mosacked, but I think the point was “better” means it is preferred, not required. I can say filet mignon is better, but that doesn’t mean I only eat it. I eat a lot of beans and rice.
Click to expand...
Agreed, scripture merely does teach that it is better. However through wishing a more Christ like priest/bishop/cardinal/Pope, the Church has decided to stick to the ways of Paul and Christ. It has been stated many times here that some priest are actually allowed to be married and be priests.

So, it is in the Bible that it is better. It is not in the Bible, from what I know anyway, that it is required.

The Trinity is not in the Bible either, word for word anyway, therefore it must not be scriptural either?

It’s a rhetorical question btw.

Those that have any issue what so ever, with a tradition and practice that actually brings one closer to God is questionable in my mind anyway. They seem more determined to “fight the power” so to speak, than to worry about what actually might bring you closer in your walk with Christ.

Marriage in itself is ministry. I greatly applaud those that are married and are pastors, but I know full well that marriage has it’s own concerns that sometimes take priority over the rest. Priests that are not married can not claim such. They simply have to work for Christ, and worry about what he would want, not what his nagging wife would want.

no offense to any wives, you nag, we ignore, it’s a fact of marriage on some level 🙂
 
Teneas said:
Agreed, scripture merely does teach that it is better. However through wishing a more Christ like priest/bishop/cardinal/Pope, the Church has decided to stick to the ways of Paul and Christ. It has been stated many times here that some priest are actually allowed to be married and be priests.

So, it is in the Bible that it is better. It is not in the Bible, from what I know anyway, that it is required.

The Trinity is not in the Bible either, word for word anyway, therefore it must not be scriptural either?

It’s a rhetorical question btw.

Those that have any issue what so ever, with a tradition and practice that actually brings one closer to God is questionable in my mind anyway. They seem more determined to “fight the power” so to speak, than to worry about what actually might bring you closer in your walk with Christ.

Marriage in itself is ministry. I greatly applaud those that are married and are pastors, but I know full well that marriage has it’s own concerns that sometimes take priority over the rest. Priests that are not married can not claim such. They simply have to work for Christ, and worry about what he would want, not what his nagging wife would want.

no offense to any wives, you nag, we ignore, it’s a fact of marriage on some level 🙂
Click to expand...
Which is one of the reasons I ask in the OP. I knew it wasn’t “letter of the law” in the Bible and I thought I heard that with the Anglican addition, that they would continue to have married priests, so I wasn’t sure how it played out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top