Hey why is it wrong for priests to marry?

[sbcoral]

st_felicity:

You think someone who can be swayed by an impulse–any impulse–would make a good priest? What if some “hot chick” cried on your “married priest’s” shoulder in the confessional–“Oh Father…you are so understanding…not at all like my husband…you are such an understanding husband to Mrs. Priest; she is soooo lucky…if my husband could be more like you…” PLEASE! Spare me the “sexual impulse” angle–Sin is sin.

Why primarily teenage and near-teenage boys then? Adult men who aren’t priests and who don’t have sex find teenage boys the most attractive? You’d think they’d target lonely women first wouln’t you?

!

See, this is my point - most men with normal attraction to women don’t choose the priesthood because the attraction of a wife and family outweighs the attraction of a life of being alone. Men with abnormal sexual impulses like gays, etc who would otherwise be living a life alone, are more attracted to the priesthood.
And, I would say, how many priests have had affairs with lonely, grown-up women? We don’t know, but it’s not the tragedy that child abuse is, so there hasn’t been much investigation. It does happen. A very well-loved pastor at the local cathedral left the priesthood a couple years ago, allegedly because he was a little too well-loved by one of the female parishioners.

 

[nettro]

Lets look at scripture to see about being married because as you know, the Bible is all we need to get our information from. It was inspired by God. The answer comes right from the Bible. Not our own opinions of what it should be: Here is the clear cut answer below:

1 Timothy 3:1-7 1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,* he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

****8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

14 These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

---

 

[gladtobe]

Not allowing priests the right to marry is both unbiblical and unhistorical. In Paul’s day the bishop was to be the husband of one wife. Thus denoting bishops were allowed to marry. Historically priests or bishops were allowed to marry for almost a 1,000 years in the church’s history until a Pope in the 10th century forbade it.Sadly, the Catholic church fulfills Paul’s end time prophecy as posted below;

1 Tim 4:1-3

4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

RSV

 

[st_felicity]

sbcoral:

See, this is my point - most men with normal attraction to women don’t choose the priesthood because the attraction of a wife and family outweighs the attraction of a life of being alone. Men with abnormal sexual impulses like gays, etc who would otherwise be living a life alone, are more attracted to the priesthood.
And, I would say, how many priests have had affairs with lonely, grown-up women? We don’t know, but it’s not the tragedy that child abuse is, so there hasn’t been much investigation. It does happen. A very well-loved pastor at the local cathedral left the priesthood a couple years ago, allegedly because he was a little too well-loved by one of the female parishioners.

How unfortunate for you that you veiw these men of God with such suspicion.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hey why is it wrong for priests to marry?

Because they took a voluntary vow not to marry. One ought to keep their the vows they voluntarily enter into. For example, I have taken a voluntary oath as a member of the USAF. I chose to be an USAF member, which began with an oath. It would be wrong for me to make such an oath, then set aside that oath if later I changed my mind, or didn’t like the officers appointed over me or the lawful orders they give to me.

Christ himself promoted the renunciation of marriage made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, for those who have such a calling. Catholicsm also promotes celibacy for those who have such a calling. Yet, for Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians. Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. For example, unmarried priests may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry.

As a comparison, some military positions are only available to unmarried service members. There’s a practical reason for this, as it is difficult to be truly dedicated to some extraordinary callings, while at the same time being attentive to one’s wife. It is a practical matter, not a denunciation of the value of Marriage. iIt is more of a prudent decision so as to better promote good order and discipline. This is similar to the Catholic norm for clergy. It is congruent with 1 Cor 7:28, where Paul described the married as having worldly anxieties and divided interests.

Marriage has never been mandatory within Christianity, not even for Church leaders, otherwise Jesus and Paul have some ‘splainin’ to do. Neither is celebacy mandatory. Both are voluntary, based upon one’s personal calling, yet celibacy is encouraged by Scripture, so one’s interests can be undivided. Catholicism simply asks those to make a choice and stick to it, based upon their personally calling. Yet, historically, variations and exceptions in clerical celebacy indicate that priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule. It can be dispensated or abrogated, if that is deemed more prudent, based upon the circumstances of the time and culture.

Paul’s requirement that a bishop be “the husband of one wife” is also a disciplinary rule, not an immutable dogma. Paul does not meant that he must have one wife, as that would be rather hypocritical given his celibacy and his promotion of celibary as the better of the two callings. Instead, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children and must not be married more than once.

 

[nettro]

Hey why is it wrong for priests to marry?

Paul’s requirement that a bishop be “the husband of one wife” is also a disciplinary rule, not an immutable dogma. Paul does not meant that he must have one wife, as that would be rather hypocritical given his celibacy and his promotion of celibary as the better of the two callings. Instead, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children and must not be married more than once.

My point is that scripture “ok’s” being married. But In Catholic teachings it states that the priest cannot marry. Am I right? That is against what scripture states. Should we not be going by what the Bible states is fact. Should not the Bible be the ultimate “instruction book” for the earthly church?

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Quick reference:

I’m sorry I don’t know how to quote from other sources, but for those of you who really care about this stuff there is an interesting note in the May 21, 2002 issue of Christianity Today. On a page that I believe is entitled “Under the Sun” there is a section called “Go Figure.” One piece of info is that in the 1990s there were 70 accusations of abuse levied against Protestant Churches every week! A goodly percentage of those were against the pastors.

Perhaps before you all suggest emulating those folks you would want to dig a little deeper than the headlines and see what’s really going on. :tsktsk:

Please keep in mind that Christianity Today is an evangelical periodical, started if I am correct by Billy Graham.

Also: What would be more fun than homosexual men hiding behind “wives?”



Anna

 

[tcay584]

comfort1st:

Thanks for the comment.

My Jewish friends and contacts (which includes at least two rabbis, one of whom taught at my college) have been consistent in comments that it would have been mentioned in the Christian scriptures if Jesus was not married because it would be so unusual for a Jewish man his age to be unmarried. On the other hand, they suggest that if he were married it would have been an unremarkable point. (Let’s remember that most of the New Testament was written by Jews).

But if He were married, don’t you think that His wife would have been mentioned somewhere in the gospels? I mean, His mom is mentioned, as are the other marys. Even if it had been “unremarkable” for Him to have been married, I’d guess that she would have been among His disciples and named as “insertfemalenamehere-The Wife of Jesus”? I’d also guess she would have been at the crucifixion, but no mention is made of any wife at the foot of the cross.
Regards,
Jennifer

 

[Tietjen]

sbcoral:

I think the celibacy requirement is what led to the child abuse situation, and I think it should be dropped.

Therefore, as I read this, you seem to imply that because Priests took a vow of chastity, the urge for sex built up in them until it finally caused them to act out in the way of sexual abuse on children. I beg to differ. The American Society has over the last century, taken a nosedive in the area of morality. 125 years ago a man was hanged for so mush as stealing a horse. Rape was punishable by death. The Churches (whether protestant of Catholic) were filled every Sunday. Satan worship was unheard of (and not tolerated by society). That’s not to say that past societies didn’t have moral dilemmas, but when compared to today’s society, it was insignificant. Now, murderers are often freed from prisons after serving only 10 to 20 years. Christian based holidays are being pushed into the closet because they are “politically incorrect.” Abortion rates have skyrocketed as have divorce among the faithful. Since Priests come from society, and society is for more immoral today than in the past, it stands to reason that SOME immoral men found themselves serving at the alter.

I do not think that celibacy itself led to child abuse, but rather that celibacy discourages men with normal sexual impulses from considering the priesthood. I knew several good and devout young men while growing up who considered entering the priesthood but whose biological impulses to mate and procreate got the better of them. I think a lot of people enter the seminary because they don’t have that normal biological drive - maybe they’re gay, or maybe they’re not mature enough to know what they are - and perhaps they think they can find an escape in a life of celibacy.

As a man who considers himself to have “normal sexual impulses” I find your argument lacking. “Normal” men can see past an urge or impulse and overcome it. An example can be found in marriage itself. A married person (man or woman) can see people of the opposite sex and even find them attractive. Yet, they CHOOSE not to act on that impulse and pursue a romantic or sexual relationship with that person. Men aren’t animals lead through life following their impulses. Urges, impulses or temptations (whatever label you choose to use) are trials put before us in life. Your comment above seems to be saying that those who fail in life’s trials are the ones who become Priests. I would object by saying the contrary. The vast majority of Priests are made up of those people who pass the trials of life. The fact that you knew many good and devout men who decided against the Priesthood because they didn’t believe that they could go through life without having sex shows simply that they:

1. Made the right decision for themselves and the Church
2. Were probably not truly called to become Priests (not everyone is)

Then, as priests, facing what must be a frequently lonely and even desperate life, some of those people give in to very bad impulses and end up abusing kids.

I doubt many Priests would say that they are lonely or desperate. Most Priests are interacting with parishioners constantly throughout any given day (and/or night). When they do find time a lone, they have their relationship with God through prayer and study as well as interaction amongst other Priests and those called to serve within the Church. Most Priests aren’t hermits living out their lives devoid of friendship and interaction with people. As many who are married can tell you, a marriage can be lonely itself. Therefore, I can’t see marriage as an answer to loneliness.

 

[Tietjen]

I think allowing for married men to enter the priesthood would be a great response to the child sex abuse scandal.

I respect your opinion but I’d see it as a reactive measure used to pacify society while forfeiting a large part of the role Priests. Should Priests marry and have traditional families, their time would have to be shared. He (the Priest) will have obligations to his wife and to his children that will take away from his responsibilities to the Church and its members. Either that or he will neglect his family and devout his time to the Church. Either way, one or the other will lose out. The Church doesn’t wish to cause harm to the sacrament of marriage and those who are married. What could She possibly say to the wife and children of the Priest who was rarely at home or unable to coach Junior’s little league team? What could She say to the parish that has a married Priest who is unable to serve at Mass one Sunday because Junior is in the hospital after a car accident the night before?

A man with a family and children of his own is a lot easier to trust around other children than a solitary man living as a eunuch.

A Godly man (or woman) is far easily for me to trust than society’s immoral definition of what a good man is.

Also, I think the Church might gain a little understanding about issues with which a large majority of practicing Catholics disagree with the hierarchy - we might get some realistic teaching about things like birth control from bishops and priests who actually know something about creating and raising and supporting families.

On the surface, this sounds logical. However, Bishops and Priest do have a very informed understanding of how life begins as well as what it takes to raise and support a family. They don’t live up on some mountain unexposed to the families within their parish. In fact, MANY Catholics turn to Priests to assist them with problems within their marriage. You raised another issue in the above quote; birth control. I don’t want to stray off topic, but I gather from your statement that you are not a fan of NFP or at least you appear to be an advocate for other forbidden forms of birth control. You say, “A large majority of practicing Catholics disagree with the hierarchy (the Church)” as though the majority should rule. What about God’s opinion? Does His opinion outweigh that of the majority? I can go on about this particular issue but I don’t wish to tread down another path and away from the original topic. We as Catholics do NOT have the authority to select what parts of the Catholic Church we want to keep and what parts we want to throw out. If everyone did that, the Church would cease to exist. The majority doesn’t rule.

Having rattled on now for way too long I will step down off the soapbox. Please do not take any offense to what I have said, because none was intended. I respect your opinions on this matter even if I don’t agree with them. Take care and God bless.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

nettro,

You said:

My point is that scripture “ok’s” being married. But In Catholic teachings it states that the priest cannot marry. Am I right? That is against what scripture states. Should we not be going by what the Bible states is fact. Should not the Bible be the ultimate “instruction book” for the earthly church?

Paul’s direction that a bishop or a deacon should be “the husband of one wife.” is restrictive, not injunctive. It was not an immutable dogma, but a provisional disciplinary norm. Scripture (Acts 15) also tells us not to eat the meat of strangled animals and avoid the blood. Does that mean that Christianity must forever eat only Kosher meats? Or was that discipline also provisional?

The most ancient and authentic interpretation of Scripture shows that Paul’s direction was restrictive, not injunctive. Observe,

Tertullian (AD 160-230): “How many men, therefore, and how many women, in Ecclesiastical Orders, owe their position to continence, who have preferred to be wedded to God” (On Exhoration to Chastity, xiii).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 315-386), in his Catechetical Lectures insists that “he who well fulfils the office of a priest of Jesus abstains froth a wife.” (Catechetical Lectures, XII, 25)

Yet, it was still voluntary. The First legislative canon touching upon obligatory celibacy for clergy seems to be that from the Council of Ancyra (AD 314):

THEY who have been made deacons, declaring when they were ordained that they must marry, because they were not able to abide so, and who afterwards have married, shall continue in their ministry, because it was conceded to them by the bishop. But if any were silent on this matter, undertaking at their ordination to abide as they were, and afterwards proceeded to marriage, these shall cease from the diaconate.

(Philip Schaff’s Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV)

The above canon shows that*** within the pre-Nicene Church***, it was binding that clergy take a vow not to marry after ordination, unless dispensed by the Bishop.

That the above norm can be dispensed by the Bishop, shows that clerical celibacy is not a Divine immutable universal law according to the Church. Instead, it is understood to be a provisional ecclesiastical disciplinary norm, which can change or be abrogated altogether depending upon circumstances of the times.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**Gladtrobe, **

You said:

Historically priests or bishops were allowed to marry for almost a 1,000 years in the church’s history until a Pope in the 10th century forbade it.

This is a poor conclustion given the evidence of history.

Consider this from St. Epiphaneus, ad 310-403:

“[The Holy Church] respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the diaconate, the priesthood, or the episcopate, no nor even to the subdiaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death, especially in those places where the ecclesiastical cannons are strictly attended to" (Haer., lix, 4).

Clerical celibacy was a pre-Nicene norm of the Church. It is clear that your claim that this was a latter innovation after the first millennium is rather dubious.

What proof do we have that Paul was being injunctive and not merely restrictive with his direction? What proof do we have that the discplinary norms from Paul were to be held forever immutable? If the thesis is that they are forever immutable, do your women wear head coverings as Paul insists upon? Do you eat only Kosher meats as was insisted upon by the apostles at the Council in Jerusalem?

 

[otm]

Tietjen:

*]On a personal level, half of all pastors (49%) reveal that their family life has suffered significantly as a result of the pressure and demands of their ministry. (1998)

OK, lets assume your statistics are accurate (and i have no reson to doubt them). the above statement seesm to make an assumption that the ministry casuses difficulty in family life, in large part because of the demands. That would lead to the conclusion that being celibate would be a better approach to ministry.

The only difficulty with that is that it gets used by too many who say that, and ignore the fact that any work that is not limited to a 40 hour work week is most likely to have the same or very similar statistics.

In other words, any business owner, and attorney, and CPA, and doctor, and outside sales person, and any other profesional postion that demands more than a 40 hour work week is going to find results in the same or very similar family pressures. However, no one goes around saying that they should all be celibate.

Celibacy is not a convenience, nor is it a means of avoiding difficult responsibilities. It is a witness and a charism. As such it needs to be encouraged and supported with those who are gifted and choose it for those reasons.

 

[otm]

nettro:

My point is that scripture “ok’s” being married. But In Catholic teachings it states that the priest cannot marry. Am I right? That is against what scripture states. Should we not be going by what the Bible states is fact. Should not the Bible be the ultimate “instruction book” for the earthly church?

Only a very limited reading of Scripture would say that being celibate is against what Scripture states. Read the whole thread; there are several who quote or allude to the fact that both Christ and Paul spoke highly of celibacy.

 

[otm]

Tietjen:

Should Priests marry and have traditional families, their time would have to be shared. He (the Priest) will have obligations to his wife and to his children that will take away from his responsibilities to the Church and its members. Either that or he will neglect his family and devout his time to the Church. Either way, one or the other will lose out. The Church doesn’t wish to cause harm to the sacrament of marriage and those who are married. What could She possibly say to the wife and children of the Priest who was rarely at home or unable to coach Junior’s little league team? What could She say to the parish that has a married Priest who is unable to serve at Mass one Sunday because Junior is in the hospital after a car accident the night before?

A) the same thing could be said of any professional who does not have a 40 hour work week; they are going to have to balance the demands of what they do with the demands of families.

B) You are ignoring the fact that the Church has a goodly number of married priests and has had for the last 20 centuries; most of them are in the Eastern rites, but now wome are in the Roman rite.

C) She doesn’t have to say anything to the parish, just as no one has to say anything to the Judge about the attorney who’s son is in the hospital; the attorney show up fior trial and then goes to the hospital again after the trial that evening, or the doctor who has to go into surgery; he sees his child after the surgery. It is a non-issue.

 

[nettro]

otm:

Only a very limited reading of Scripture would say that being celibate is against what Scripture states. Read the whole thread; there are several who quote or allude to the fact that both Christ and Paul spoke highly of celibacy.

The Bible is the final authority. The priests should not be forbidden to marry if they are to give God’s Word. Yes, I have read what Paul has to say. and throughout the scripture also. Let me put it this way… Yes… the Bible speaks of celibacy… great! But God’s Word also ALLOWS marriage according to the Word of God in Timothy. Understand what I’m saying? The Catholic church’s teachings speak against the Word of God if they do not allow marriage within the leadership of the local church. As you can see in above threads, ******
3****** forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

I’m just showing what the Bible says. Not what man says.

Seriously, I’m just trying to use scripture to help show what I am talking about. The Bible is to be the instruction.

 In Christ

 

[Tantum_ergo]

commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

This relates not to a Lenten discipline, but to those dissenters in Paul’s own time who held that Gentiles should follow the restrictions of Jewish dietary laws. There is a big difference between a penitential action of abstinence from ONE food, meat, offered up as a sacrificial offering to God, and the Jewish dietary laws of the time which forbade the eating of many creatures including pigs, hares, lobster etc., forbade mixing meat with milk, forbade eating blood (do you know what “koshering” meat entails), and other practices such as ritual cleansing, separate utensils for meat or dairy foods, etc. I mean, this was actually addressed by Simon Peter and his vision of all the “unclean” food which came down from heaven and the Lord commanding Him to eat. . .to which Peter responded, “Never, Lord, have I allowed anything unclean to pass my lips”, and the Lord responding, "What I have made clean, do not you call ". . .and Peter, then called to a Gentile’s house, understood that salvation was being offered, not just to the “clean” Jews but the “unclean” Gentiles as well.

See, context is important.

As for “forbidding to marry”, again that relates to particular heretical groups of Paul’s times who upheld Gnostic views which led to later heresies such as the Manichean, who felt that marriage, or “fleshly desire” was all sinful, and only “spirit” was pure.

Priests are not “forbidden” to marry in the sense you appear to believe, that marriage is some sort of prize or something that people just naturally deserve, and celibacy something totally undesirable and repulsive… Men enter the priesthood with the full knowledge, desire and will to consecrate themselves to GOD. It is a choice, just as marriage is a choice. Both are good, viable choices.

 

[nettro]

Priests are not “forbidden” to marry in the sense you appear to believe, that marriage is some sort of prize or something that people just naturally deserve, and celibacy something totally undesirable and repulsive… Men enter the priesthood with the full knowledge, desire and will to consecrate themselves to GOD. It is a choice, just as marriage is a choice. Both are good, viable choices.

You are correct. Marriage is a choice. But it clearly states in scripture that they CAN Marry. That is my whole point. Nowhere scripturally does it say DO NOT MARRY. Not even in Pauls writings. God is happy with marriage. But my point is that the priests are NOT ALLOWED TO MARRY. If they are preaching the Word of God, and maybe sometime down the line decide that they would like to be married, but continue preaching the Word of God, they would have to QUIT the Catholic Church and preach elsewhere. That is what I am saying… It is not scriptural to disallow marriage while preaching the Word of God.

 

[Tietjen]

Hi OTM,

otm:

A) the same thing could be said of any professional who does not have a 40 hour work week; they are going to have to balance the demands of what they do with the demands of families…

While it’s true that many husbands (and some wives as well) work hours that cause them and their families to be apart or miss important events in the lives of their children, this is not necessarily, how it should be. Why would the Church change its position and subject families of Priests to this situation?

B) You are ignoring the fact that the Church has a goodly number of married priests and has had for the last 20 centuries; most of them are in the Eastern rites, but now wome are in the Roman rite.

Yes, I do ignore the Eastern rite Church because I am of the Latin rite Church, which is what we are referring to here. The truth is I know little about the Eastern rite Churches so I will not be able to comment on them. However, concerning the subject for which we speak, I did find this link useful in the Catholic Encyclopedia under the title Celibacy of the Clergy. It is also my understanding that even the Eastern rite Churches do not allow their Priests to marry, rather those married men wishing to enter the Priesthood may be allowed to enter. In addition, should an Eastern Rite Priest become widowed, he may not remarry. In addition, Eastern Rite Bishops are ONLY chosen from among Eastern Rite Monks (who are not allowed to be married at all) so you will never find a Eastern Rite Bishop who is married.

Yes, there have been some Lutheran and Episcopal ministers who were already married and then became Catholic Priests in the Latin rite. However, these are exceptions to the rule and not the norm. Because chastity of Latin rite Priests is a disciplinary rule and not a doctrine it can be changed. HOWEVER, until the Holy Father does so, it will remain a rule that must be adhered to.

C) She doesn’t have to say anything to the parish, just as no one has to say anything to the Judge about the attorney who’s son is in the hospital; the attorney show up fior trial and then goes to the hospital again after the trial that evening, or the doctor who has to go into surgery; he sees his child after the surgery. It is a non-issue.

It wouldn’t be to me if I were that attorney or that doctor. I’d be at my child’s side in the hospital every second. Even if some force could move me away from his bedside and have me go to my job, do you think that I would be able to concentrate well enough to give a proper defense for my client in court or would my thoughts be elsewhere? I personally feel that the Priests role is greater than that of an attorney.

As a side note here, I’d like to bring up one other point for why a Priest should not be married. Suppose the Holy See were to allow its Priests to marry. What happens if the wife of a Priest discovers that she can’t handle sharing her husband (or dealing with his vow of poverty) and files for divorce? Obviously, the Priest wouldn’t be able to remarry, but what of the scandal, that situation would cause.

So, in closing I would have to quote the old saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Leave the Priesthood with it’s vow of Chastity.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

nettro,

Yes, they can marry. The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage. Yet, it does not say in Scripture that the Church MUST ordain married men. Nor does it say in Scripture that if a priest should marry after his ordination, that the Church MUST allow them to continue their ministry. The Church is permitted to do so, but not mandated to do so. You seem to interpret Paul’s direction as injuctive, where the Church interprets his direction as restrictive. Yet, you haven’t given any compelling evidence why we should interpret Paul’s direction as injunctive. If you insist upon Bible alone as your guide, then tell me the chapter and verse that shows Paul’s direction is injunctive.

Paul’s direction did not specify that the Church could not be more restrictive than the minimum standard. Catholic norms meet Paul’s direction, when understood correctly, that bishops are not to have more than one wife and they are not to have unruly children. Celibate priests have neither. This does not mean, as you seem to imply, that ONLY men with one wife and good children may be bishops.

The Catholic Church is not forbidding marriage, but the Church is restricting membership to some offices to only those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy. There is Scriptural precedent for the practice of restricting membership in a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy. St. Paul states: “But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge” (1 Tim 5:11–12). Note that the pledge of renunciation of marriage was a requirement of enrollment. Who still does this? (hint: Catholicism). Is Paul to be accused of “forbidding marriage” here? I dont’ think so. Nor does the Catholic Church “forbid marriage.” But it does select from candidate who take a voluntary vow of celibacy, which has Scriptural precedent.

See more here:

Celibacy and the Priesthood
catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp