Marriage is not inferior to Celibacy

[MarcoPolo]

In addition to the Matthew passage and Corinthians passage in which Jesus and Paul say if you can do celibacy, then you should (indicative of a higher call), don’t forget that celibacy on earth is in imitation of heaven.

There is no marriage in heaven, as Jesus told us (Mt. 22:30, Luke 20:34-35). So those who can accept the higher call are in imitation of our brothers and sisters perfected in heaven.

Jesus made that clear.

 

[Church_Militant]

Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given.

12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

Sorry, Michael, but nowhere in there does Christ say celibacy is better.

He does say it is given to some

to be celibates, but that is far different from celibacy being better in general.That’s your interpretation and you are welcome to it, but the bolded part does indeed plainly point out that Jesus meant that “it is not expedient to marry”.

N-Cs who use the KJV have it even more stringent I guess when it says, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.”

Matthew 19:10-12 (Amplified Bible)
10The disciples said to Him, If the case of a man with his wife is like this, it is neither profitable nor advisable to marry.

11But He said to them, Not all men can accept this saying, but it is for those to whom [the capacity to receive] it has been given.

12For there are eunuchs who have been born incapable of marriage; and there are eunuchs who have been made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves incapable of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him who is able to accept this accept it.

Some folks try to ignore what they perhaps don’t want to see.

 

[Atemi]

How about the Holy Spirit?

1 Cor 7:7. For I would that all men were even as myself. But every one hath his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that.

No.

The Holy Spirit does not say celibacy is better here. Actually, He says just the opposite:

“every one hath his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that”

…

 

[Atemi]

The GREATEST GOOD that we can ever do is to surrender our lives to God and live entirely as He desires us to. If God calls us to celibacy, then that is the greatest good there is for us. If God calls us to marriage, then that is the greatest good there is for us.

I think this shows the greatest wisdom on this thread.

Some are indeed celibates who were never so gifted or called. Some are married who were never so gifted or called.

Both only cause angst, pain, or difficulty.

The greatest good for the church is for all those in The Body to manifest their diverse gifts…whatever they may be.

If the greatest good for all was celibacy, then the greatest good would mean the cessation of human life. We all know this is not so. God does not gift anyone with LESSER good.

…

 

[Atemi]

That’s your interpretation and you are welcome to it

That is not my “interpretation.” That is what our Lord plainly said.

but the bolded part does indeed plainly point out that Jesus meant that “it is not expedient to marry”.

I am sorry, Michael, but the Scriptures say the disciples said that (in frustration, I might add). Our Lord never, ever said “it is not expedient to marry.”

We cannot afford to put the words of others into the mouth of Christ.

Expedient means advisable, appropriate, desirable, or profitable. Our Lord surely never said or implied that marriage itself is undesirable or unadvisable. In actuallity, He is the one who invented it!

…

 

[HailMary]

No.

The Holy Spirit does not say celibacy is better here. Actually, He says just the opposite:

“every one hath his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that”

…

No, sir.

 

[DJim]

Isn’t it rather clear that there may be some difference in view on this topic largely because of “frame of reference” and nothing else?

It’s a difference between “subjective” and “objective” criteria.

Subjectively, there is simply NO way to say one is better than the other, because subjectively we are all called to something unique.

Objectively, it is quite possible to offer reasons why celibacy may appear “superior” from the standpoint of its eternal implications, and this has been done historically in the Church.

One does not cancel out the other–it’s simply both/and…

Hope this proves helpful…

DJim

 

[Petergee]

You are really growing very defensive and angry over this whole issue. If we cannot discuss this without accusations and anger, then we can just drop it. I have no problem discussing this civily.
…

Gee thanks for analysing by remote control what you think my emotions are. I do not feel defensive, but I do feel somewhat angry that you (apparently deliberately) keep misrepresenting what i said, in spite of my polite requests to you to refrain from doing so.

I also love how you asserted that Christ never said celibacy for the Kingdom is a higher good than marriage, and then when I quoted Him saying so, you simply ignore it.

 

[Atemi]

Gee thanks for analysing by remote control what you think my emotions are. I do not feel defensive, but I do feel somewhat angry that you (apparently deliberately) keep misrepresenting what i said, in spite of my polite requests to you to refrain from doing so.

In case you did not notice, I was asking repeatedly for clarification which still is forthcoming, I guess.

I also love how you asserted that Christ never said celibacy for the Kingdom is a higher good than marriage, and then when I quoted Him saying so, you simply ignore it.

Ignore it?

How can I ignore what you never posted?

Christ nowhere said celibacy is a higher good than marriage. Not a single verse forwarded says that.

In actuality, Christ said that that life was only meant for some (and He defined who those are), so for others it surely would be no “greater good.”

…

 

[Petergee]

In case you did not notice, I was asking repeatedly for clarification which still is forthcoming, I guess.

Ignore it?

How can I ignore what you never posted?

Christ nowhere said celibacy is a higher good than marriage. Not a single verse forwarded says that.

In actuality, Christ said that that life was only meant for some (and He defined who those are), so for others it surely would be no “greater good.”

…

I respect your right to place that interpretation upon Christ’s words, and hopefully you’ll respect my right to view that as a tendentious and perverse interpretation which no serious scripture scholar would find tenable.

 

[LittleDeb]

How can celibacy for the Kingdom not be the greater good for some people (you said no) and also not the greater good for all people at the same time?

I am going to have to agree with Petergee on this part too. Your words, not his, of “at the same time,” is where the confusion lies.

Please forgive the term because I haven’t found a better term yet, but the idea of viewing things and speaking “inside time” is something I see as very temporal. I call it “Protestant-speak.” God is outside of time. If we are viewing this from God’s perspective then yes, celibacy is the greater good for all. Do you disagree with what I posted earlier that we are all celibates in heaven? Do you agree with the Mormons that there will be marriage and sexual intercourse in heaven?

If Christianity teaches that we are celibate in heaven, then it is the greater good, “at the same time” as you put it. We are bound by time, God is not. I am called to marriage here. I am not called to celibacy during “my time” in this life. But I am called to it the moment I die. None of us know that moment, but for God everything is “right now.”

Some here also seem to be equating equal dignity with equal rank. A major and a colonel are equal in dignity as human beings, but are not equal in rank. Marriage and celibacy are equal in dignity but not rank. Pope John Paul II said that to reject one is to reject the other too. They are rejected on their dignity, rank has nothing to do with it.

 

[Atemi]

God is outside of time. If we are viewing this from God’s perspective then yes, celibacy is the greater good for all.

I am not called to celibacy during “my time” in this life. But I am called to it the moment I die.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but Christ was clearly not addressing eternity. This is plain from the text.

Christ is specifically addressing the temporal, not after death.

…

 

[Michael_Francis]

Keep to the topic and avoid the personal arguments. If you cannot post objectively then you are better off to not respond.

Posts have been removed to keep the thread from deteriorating.
MF

 

[LittleDeb]

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but Christ was clearly not addressing eternity. This is plain from the text.

Christ is specifically addressing the temporal, not after death.

…

I still disagree. As is made evident in MarcoPolo’s excellent post, Jesus is addressing both. I have yet to see any passage where Jesus addresses only temporal and NOT eternal.

In addition to the Matthew passage and Corinthians passage in which Jesus and Paul say if you can do celibacy, then you should (indicative of a higher call), don’t forget that celibacy on earth is in imitation of heaven.

There is no marriage in heaven, as Jesus told us (Mt. 22:30, Luke 20:34-35). So those who can accept the higher call are in imitation of our brothers and sisters perfected in heaven.

Jesus made that clear.

 

[Atemi]

I still disagree. As is made evident in MarcoPolo’s excellent post, Jesus is addressing both. I have yet to see any passage where Jesus addresses only temporal and NOT eternal.

His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

The disciples ask our Lord a temporal question about the here and now.

"But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given”

This is temporal.

All men in eternity will accept it.

“For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb”

Temporal again.

There are no one born from a mother’s womb in eternity.

“and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men”

Temporal again. Not so in eternity.

“and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”

Again, temporal. The disciples know what He is referring to.

Men will not make themselves celibates in eternity.

“He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

Temporal again.

All those in eternity don’t need to "accep"t it, as they will automatically be celibate.

…

 

[LittleDeb]

"and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake"Again, temporal. The disciples know what He is referring to.

Men will not make themselves celibates in eternity."He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."Temporal again.

All those in eternity don’t need to "accep"t it, as they will automatically be celibate.

…

This is a great example. Thank you. We have very different interpretations on this Scripture passage. Same words, but we are getting two totally different interpretations.

I really want to stay on topic so I will simply say that I respect your personal interpretation but do not agree. I hold that Jesus is addressing the temporal because He is really addressing the eternal. You are speaking with a Catholic here. The Church has always taught that we must accept and cooperate with God in our salvation. “Accepting” celibacy here shows concretely that we will accept it in heaven. But, since that Catholic interpretation could spiral down into a “Faith alone” discussion, I prefer not to address it further in this thread. I just wanted to give you my POV so you understand why I disagree.

 

[Church_Militant]

That is not my “interpretation.” That is what our Lord plainly said.

Matthew 19:10-11 "10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given.

Actually it is your literalist interpretation.

I am sorry, Michael, but the Scriptures say the disciples said that

(in frustration, I might add). Our Lord never, ever said "it is not expedient to marry."So you are going to sit there and tell people that Christ’s statement “All men take not this word” is not a direct affirmation of the truth of what the apostles just verbalized? The text is right there and everyone can see for themselves the context of what was said and what was meant by Our Lord.

BTW, I don’t see any frustration in the apostles’ comments. I think you may be reading that into the text.

We cannot afford to put the words of others into the mouth of Christ.

Then don’t do it…

Expedient means advisable, appropriate, desirable, or profitable

. Our Lord surely never said or implied that marriage itself is undesirable or unadvisable. In actuallity, He is the one who invented it!There is no contest that God approves of marriage.

But you seem to overlook the fact that God also invented celibacy, and Christ’s statement, as well as the teaching of St. Paul certainly speak of spiritual realities that people simply seem not to want to accept or embrace.

I (for instance) could actually care less if marriage is some slightly lesser vocation than celibacy. If one is willing to accept one’s vocation and “with great confidence submit ourselves to God’s holy will, which is Love and Mercy itself” then one will not feel slighted in any way to carry that out.

IMO A discussion like this, (as to whether marriage and celibacy are “equal” vocations in the eyes of God) actually should be thought of in the same way as the contention that broke out among the disciples as to who would be greatest in the Kingdom of heaven.

As Jesus pointed out to them then, there are far more important things to concern oneself with.

 

[Reepicheep]

That’s your interpretation and you are welcome to it, but the bolded part does indeed plainly point out that Jesus meant that “it is not expedient to marry”.

N-Cs who use the KJV have it even more stringent I guess when it says, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.”

Matthew 19:10-12 (Amplified Bible)
10The disciples said to Him, If the case of a man with his wife is like this, it is neither profitable nor advisable to marry.

11But He said to them, Not all men can accept this saying, but it is for those to whom [the capacity to receive] it has been given.

12For there are eunuchs who have been born incapable of marriage; and there are eunuchs who have been made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves incapable of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him who is able to accept this accept it.

Some folks try to ignore what they perhaps don’t want to see.

But it *wasn’t *Jesus who said “It is not expedient to marry”. It was the disciples who said that *to *Jesus. He replied that this teaching was not for everyone.

 

[Church_Militant]

But it *wasn’t *

Jesus who said “It is not expedient to marry”. It was the disciples who said that *to *Jesus. He replied that this teaching was not for everyone.That is not my point.

The point is that Jesus does indeed confirm it as so.

 

[DJim]

ChurchMilitant:

Are you trying to claim that Jesus believed that “it is not expedient to marry”???

Meaning…what?? That Jesus thought we Christians should all be celibate?

If celibacy is somehow “better” for all of us, and you’re saying Jesus wants what’s “better” for all of us, then all of us should be celibate, right?

Don’t you see some inherent problems in that line of thinking?

DJim