Is it better for us to take spouses, or the remain celibate in our lives?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
Didn’t St. Peter have a wife? Guess our first Pope was anathema.
Click to expand...
Maybe his wife wasn’t as pleasant to be around as my wife is. (I kid, I kid)

The original passage suggests to me that Saint Paul just might not have been “the marrying type” and projected his experiences onto the rest of humanity.

And perhaps the celibate priesthood of later days continued that policy.

As always, I could be wrong about that.
 
Saints’ viewpoints were indeed colored by their personal experiences. St. Augustine is another one who was really into celibacy. Looking at his wild life of sin before he settled down and started living a holy life, it’s understandable. Sex to him was a highway to hell, not something where people helped each other to heaven.

On the other hand, we have had quite a few saints who were married, some happily, some unhappily. Some of them did their saintly activities while married and others adopted a holy lifestyle after they were widowed. St. Monica, St. Bridget of Sweden, St. John the Almoner, St. Thomas More, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, St. Rita of Cascia, St. Elizabeth of Hungary, and Sts. Louis and Zelie Martin were all married, and they were not in celibate marriages because they all had kids.

Having said that, I am willing to accept that celibacy, of the type embraced by priests and religious and others who consecrate themselves, deserves honor and glory because the person is willingly giving up an earthly pleasure to put their mind on God.

But there’s a place in the world for marriage too, because otherwise, we would run out of people to love and serve God. Let’s also not forget all the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets who had wives and huge families as a blessing from God, and all the women in the Bible right up to St. Elizabeth who the Lord blessed by giving them a child. Except for the Blessed Mother, every one of those women who had a child got this blessing from God in the usual, un-celibate manner.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Having said that, I am willing to accept that celibacy, of the type embraced by priests and religious and others who consecrate themselves, deserves honor and glory because the person is willingly giving up an earthly pleasure to put their mind on God.
Click to expand...
Most definitely, I have plenty of respect for folks who do a tough job that I’m not likely to be any good at.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
With all due respect, I think the fact that they gave birth to a Doctor of the Church as well as becoming saints themselves is a very clear statement of how God thought about it and I do not think this was all purely “accidental circumstances”. It was PART OF GOD’S PLAN
Click to expand...
the betrayal of Judas was also integrated into God’s plan to save us … God integrates our free choices (whether these choices are bad, good, or excellent) in his plans to show his goodness. So we should not judge the intrinsic value of a choice (good, bad, excellent) by its accidental consequences, that is, consequences not intrinsic to this choice.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
When it gets to the point where you are dismissing a great saint and a Doctor of the Church as an “accidental consequence” rather than a gift from God, then you have left the bounds of any sort of rational thought on this issue.
Click to expand...
a consequence is accidental for us not for God, so that gives no merit to the one who has been used as an instrument of God for this purpose. And God, in His sovereign providence, would have produced an identical consequence if we had made another choice.
 
There is no reason why married priests could not provide the Sacraments and the Eucharist. I see no advantage to the celibate life. For humans who are sexual by nature it is a completely unnatural state.
 
it is you who are doing diversion and slander, I have never said that Judas’s betrayal has the same moral value as the birth of Therese.
Read again what I said, it’s simple and clear
 
There is nothing “slanderous” about pointing out that an argument being made is not very good.
There is nothing “divisive” about having a different opinion on an issue, especially when the other person’s position appears to be extreme.
I will stop now as I think the disagreement has been wholly expressed. Peace out.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Humans have varying degrees of sexuality by nature. There are people who are wholly or largely asexual and for them it would be unnatural to enter into a marriage requiring sex
Click to expand...
Asexuals are an minority (it would be about 5%), and sacred celibacy does not concern them, for their celibacy is of the order of nature, and not of the order of supernatural grace.
 
clarkgamble1 said:
There is no reason why married priests could not provide the Sacraments and the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
the celibacy of priests is a disciplinary measure that may disappear one day. Moreover, the Catholic Church exceptionally admits to the priesthood some married (since JPII, an Anglican priest even married who become Catholic, are ordained Catholic priest)
clarkgamble1 said:
I see no advantage to the celibate life
For humans who are sexual by nature it is a completely unnatural state
Click to expand...
In a context where the population of humanity would be in danger of extension, celibacy could even be seen as a crime against humanity.
But in the opposite context where the urgency is the improvement of the quality of life of the population and not its increase, celibacy chooses to better devote itself to the service of the human family in distress, is an excellent choice, is a sacrifice commendable.
 
Last edited:
The Catholic Church exceptionally orders married Anglican priests, so the celibacy of priests is not an absolute necessity, otherwise their celibacy would be a doctrinal measure and not a disciplinary measure
 
Mboo said:
The Catholic Church exceptionally orders married Anglican priests, so the celibacy of priests is not an absolute necessity, otherwise their celibacy would be a doctrinal measure and not a disciplinary measure
Click to expand...
Yes, sir! 🙂
 
clarkgamble1 said:
I see no advantage to the celibate life. For humans who are sexual by nature it is a completely unnatural state.
Click to expand...
Hence, why the celibate life is a supernatural state. The holiest human beings to have walked this Earth were both celibate and were in the most intimate and closest communion with Our Blessed Lord.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
Of course not, marriage is a sacrament, but is celibacy superior?
Click to expand...
Yes, celibacy is “superior” as in “higher,” but not “better.”

Celibacy is a “higher calling,” but Matrimony is still a Sacrament.

Celibacy is a “higher calling” because it is similar to how we will be in Heaven and because it allows us to dedicate our lives to the service of others (aka our parishes, communities & societies) instead of to the service of our own families.

But this DOES NOT mean that one is better than the other.

I pray this makes sense.
 
Last edited:
One of my priest friends says that parents become Saints in Heaven.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top