Marriage of Priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter reform3703
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

reform3703

Guest
In an effort to get some real answers here, I am curious to see what comes up as the reasoning for the ban on marriage within the priesthood. I realize that to the Catholic community, the Bible isn’t everything and there are other sources for truth, but the Bible also cannot be ignored and cannot be false, either. That said, the following are a couple of verses taken from the Bible which support the marriage of the clergy, apart from the Old Testament marriage of priests.

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
–1 Timothy 3:2-7 (NKJV)

Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 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.
–1 Timothy 3:8-13 (NKJV)

Another important statement comes from Pope Sylvester (I was not able to find which one; if you know, feel free to share) who states that every priest should be the husband of one wife. Was the infallible Pope wrong?

Note: Before you go ranting about how Jesus and Paul were both celibate, think about this: Jesus was a bit extraordinary and probably didn’t not need a wife as true God (as well as true man) and Paul was the one who wrote this letter, so I think his stance is obvious. Also, I realize that some deacons are allowed to marry, but it establishes a pattern and there is still the issue of bishops.
 
Hi,

Here is a link that will give you a quick summary regarding celibacy and the priesthood:

newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

As included in that link, St. Paul also wrote:

“But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment.” (1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and 32-35)
 
A ffew thoughts:
  1. Are you aware that the Catholic Church ALREADY HAS married priests? Many of the Eastern branches of the Catholic Church allow for married priests, although they must be married BEFORE ordination, not after (with the exception of a priest whose has children and their mother died while they were young may get special permission to marry again). Also, converts who are married ministers of other faiths (usually Anglican, Episcopalian, Lutheran, although recently there was one Baptist) may receive permission to become priests in the Latin rite in special circumstances. Currently, there are over 100 married priests in the US alone.
  2. The restriction on married priests is a discipline of the church, not a dogma, meaning it can be changed at any time. Indeed, the Catholic Church permitted married priests all the way up to the eleventh century, but rampant corruption forced a change. There were serious problems involving nepotism (priests supporting the careers of their sons and brothers within the church), and many priests’ families lived a inordinately high lifestyle. Cluny Abbey in France initiated a reform movement that, among other things, instituted mandatory celibacy upon the local clergy. This reform was so successful and so popular among the laity, that the pope issued an edict proclaiming celibacy mandatory for all priests soon thereafter. The irony is that although some people are now calling on the church to “reform” mandatory celibacy, it was actually imposed as a reform in the first place.
  3. The pope is not “impeccable”, merely “infallible”. Impeccable means that the pope is incapable of sinning, and is perfect in everything he does. This, of course, is not true. If fact, the Catholic Church fully acknowledges that there are a few popes that might actually be in hell for their actions on earth. The “infallibility” of the pope ONLY extends to matters of faith and morals, and ONLY if the pope is specifically invoking the power of infallibility. For example, in the last 200 years, the pope has only spoken infallibly twice, once to proclaim the Immaculate Conception, and once to proclaim the Assumption of Mary (which is an entirely different topic altogether).
Hope that helps.
 
Rolltide said:
A ffew thoughts:
  1. Are you aware that the Catholic Church ALREADY HAS married priests? Many of the Eastern branches of the Catholic Church allow for married priests, although they must be married BEFORE ordination, not after (with the exception of a priest whose has children and their mother died while they were young may get special permission to marry again). Also, converts who are married ministers of other faiths (usually Anglican, Episcopalian, Lutheran, although recently there was one Baptist) may receive permission to become priests in the Latin rite in special circumstances. Currently, there are over 100 married priests in the US alone.
  2. The restriction on married priests is a discipline of the church, not a dogma, meaning it can be changed at any time. Indeed, the Catholic Church permitted married priests all the way up to the eleventh century, but rampant corruption forced a change. There were serious problems involving nepotism (priests supporting the careers of their sons and brothers within the church), and many priests’ families lived a inordinately high lifestyle. Cluny Abbey in France initiated a reform movement that, among other things, instituted mandatory celibacy upon the local clergy. This reform was so successful and so popular among the laity, that the pope issued an edict proclaiming celibacy mandatory for all priests soon thereafter. The irony is that although some people are now calling on the church to “reform” mandatory celibacy, it was actually imposed as a reform in the first place.
  3. The pope is not “impeccable”, merely “infallible”. Impeccable means that the pope is incapable of sinning, and is perfect in everything he does. This, of course, is not true. If fact, the Catholic Church fully acknowledges that there are a few popes that might actually be in hell for their actions on earth. The “infallibility” of the pope ONLY extends to matters of faith and morals, and ONLY if the pope is specifically invoking the power of infallibility. For example, in the last 200 years, the pope has only spoken infallibly twice, once to proclaim the Immaculate Conception, and once to proclaim the Assumption of Mary (which is an entirely different topic altogether).
Hope that helps.
Click to expand...
Let me go in order of your statements:
  1. Perhaps this would be a good place for a point of clarity: I am referring solely to the Latin Rite (Roman Catholic) Church. Eastern branches who no longer ally themselves with the Pope are not the topic of discussion that I intended. I apologize for any confusion that may have caused. Those other situations are, as you said, special. They are not the norm and are very rare. Priests are not allowed to be ordained, in almost all cases, if they are already married and they cannot take wives without discontinuing their ministry (though they cannot “stop being a priest”).
  2. The question is not whether or not it can be changed. The question is what is currently in place. The current stance frowns upon, in the few cases when it does not outright forbid, the marriage of priests. Corruption is an issue that was not entirely solved by banning marriage of priests. Priests still have families (siblings, nieces, nephews, cousins, etc.), simply not children and wives. The practice of celibacy reflects the time in which it was established. It seemed like an easy solution and, at least for a while, it may have been. However, it was a solution to a temporal matter, not a spiritual one. There remains no reason to disallow priests from entering wedlock as far as faith and biblical tradition are concerned. Furthermore, popularity is hardly a sound reason to institute a practice. All you have to do is look around you and you will quickly discover that the world we live in is full of people who make bad decisions; it is a side-effect of living in a fallen world. Church matters should not be decided by a popularity contest or, as Rousseau would put it, the “general-will.” That is, in fact, the very problem they were trying to eradicate in the first place. They were trying to prevent the popularity contests taking place when the priests and bishops played favorites with their families. Reform can be both a necessary and a harmful thing. Being a Lutheran, I hold that the break from the Catholic Church was necessary to preserve the faith that I hold to be true when Rome refused to admit and correct its mistakes. However, I would also hold that other reform movements, some sprouting from Lutheranism, further distort the faith in the opposite direction. A balance must be reached in which we find God to be pleased.
  3. You will find that “infallible” is the exact word that I used in my original post. I am well aware that the Pontiff is not impeccable. That has made itself clear throughout history. What the Pope did when he began to enforce clerical celibacy is an act of faith and morality. His infallibility, if nothing else, should be better explained to the mindless masses who take every word emitted from his mouth to be a message directly from God. If the Pope was, at the time, incorrect in opting for clerical celibacy, then it is time for Benedict to point it out. We need to be brought out of the dark ages to some extent. Having said that, I am also a conservative who does not wish to see us stray too far in the other direction, either. It is simply time that we accept certain Biblical truths and move on to focus out minds and hearts on more important matters.
 
There is one other point which I have not made and that no one has touched and may be of importance. I will say it in two statements and then I would hope that someone else would elaborate on them more:
Would you rather receive premarital counseling from a priest who is married and has experienced the joys, sufferings, etc. that marriage brings (especially if you hold marriage as a sacrament) or would you rather receive it from a man who, though he has seen and probably officiated many weddings, has never experienced it himself and cannot fully relate and offer more practical advice? Would you rather ask for advice, some months or years down the line, about being a good Christian parent from another Christian parent who probably has a greater knowledge and understanding of God and the Scriptures, or a celibate priest who, except in the very rare cases cited above, has never had children and has not had the responsibility of tending for children in any sense other than that of the children of God? You decide. I look forward to your (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
reform3703 said:
.
  1. If the Pope was, at the time, incorrect in opting for clerical celibacy, then it is time for Benedict to point it out. We need to be brought out of the dark ages to some extent.
Click to expand...
First, at no point did the pope ever define celibacy infallibly. In fact, it remains simply a tradition that the church could change at any time. It is NOT dogma, as proven by the fact that various exceptions have been and continue to be made. If the pope so desired, he could undo the tradition tomorrow (or change his mind again and reinstate it fifty years after that). That said, there have always been good reasons to maintain a celibate clergy, and I fail to see how celibacy causes the church to “remain in the dark ages”. You would never get an admission that the pope, “at the time”, was incorrect for opting for celibacy, even if it changed. It would simply argued that it is a good and appropriate discipline that no longer need be mandatory. Mind you, that even if the celibacy requirement was lifted, it would remain a voluntary option for all secular priests. Religious orders, which have their own regulations, would almost certainly continue to maintain the requirement for themselves, since it was a tradition for them all the way from their founding in the third century. It should also be mentioned that in the event that the celibacy requirement was lifted, it would only expand marriage to include priests. Their position would be terminal, and they could not advance to the rank of bishop or above (just as it is currently within the Eastern Catholic Churches). That is a tenant of the church that most likely could NOT change.

One thing that should be immediately pointed out… were this to change, it would likely have little effect on the priest shortage. The Orthodox have had a married clergy since the beginning, and they are experiencing a similar shortage of priests to the Catholic Church.
 
reform3703 said:
There is one other point which I have not made and that no one has touched and may be of importance. I will say it in two statements and then I would hope that someone else would elaborate on them more:
Would you rather receive premarital counseling from a priest who is married and has experienced the joys, sufferings, etc. that marriage brings (especially if you hold marriage as a sacrament) or would you rather receive it from a man who, though he has seen and probably officiated many weddings, has never experienced it himself and cannot fully relate and offer more practical advice? Would you rather ask for advice, some months or years down the line, about being a good Christian parent from another Christian parent who probably has a greater knowledge and understanding of God and the Scriptures, or a celibate priest who, except in the very rare cases cited above, has never had children and has not had the responsibility of tending for children in any sense other than that of the children of God? You decide. I look forward to your (name removed by moderator)ut.
Click to expand...
I actually HAVE received marriage counseling from a variety of priests (all celibate). I thought their advice was very good. If I had a problem in the future, I would have no problem speaking with either of the priests in my town, and that’s the honest truth.

As a different example, are male ob/gyn’s incapable of being good doctors because they have never experienced childbirth or female problems for themselves? Many women I know prefer male ob/gyn’s. How is this different?
 
  1. Perhaps this would be a good place for a point of clarity: I am referring solely to the Latin Rite (Roman Catholic) Church. Eastern branches who no longer ally themselves with the Pope are not the topic of discussion that I intended. I apologize for any confusion that may have caused. Those other situations are, as you said, special. They are not the norm and are very rare. Priests are not allowed to be ordained, in almost all cases, if they are already married and they cannot take wives without discontinuing their ministry (though they cannot “stop being a priest”).
Click to expand...
Reform3703, he WAS talking about (Eastern-Rite Catholic) priests who DO ally themselves with the pope, so yes, they are part of the topic of discussion.

Now be honest, Reform3703 — are you posting to have a legitimate dialogue, or are you just being a TOOL?
 
Thanks for the question. I presume you are from a protestant community from the tone of your remarks. I studied with the Navigators in college so I can understand the approach. The problem here is one of context. Most protestants seem to think that reading Scripture in context means reading the paragraphs before and after the verse they want to quote, or perhaps the whole book for the hard-core! But context is SO much more than that!

Read those passages again. You seem to think they require bishops and priests to be be married. Think again. What culture was St Paul writing to? The pagans of the Roman empire. Ever hear of Polygamy? It was widespread back then. Infidelity and divorce/abandonment is not a new idea either. Paul is quite simply forbidding polygamists or what we’d today call divorced and remarried men from becoming priests. As you said yourself before, he OBVIOUSLY isn’t saying one MUST be married to be a priest or bishop or he’d be the biggest hypocrite in the Church.

Celibate priesthood is not a doctrinal or moral issue in catholicism. It is a disciplinary decision. Through experience (some of which was St Paul’s), the church learned that men who made the radical decision to make the Church herself their bride had a freedom to offer themselves in self-sacrifice and martyrdom that those with family committments lacked.

As for your marriage example, I dare you to go and read John Paul II’s “Love and Responsibility” or the non-theologian’s simplified explanations in Christopher West’s “Theology of the Body for Beginners” and tell me you have to be married to understand God’s plan for sexuality. Frankly I think it takes MORE understanding of true sexuality and virtue to live a life of celibacy.
 
reform3703 said:
In an effort to get some real answers here, I am curious to see what comes up as the reasoning for the ban on marriage within the priesthood. I realize that to the Catholic community, the Bible isn’t everything and there are other sources for truth, but the Bible also cannot be ignored and cannot be false, either. That said, the following are a couple of verses taken from the Bible which support the marriage of the clergy, apart from the Old Testament marriage of priests.
Click to expand...
First, St. Paul (and Pope Sylvester - who, btw, was not making an infallible statement) simply says that those who are bishops must not be polygamists; he says nothing about the absolute necessity of bishops being married period.

Second, at no time have priests been allowed to marry following their ordination.

The discipline of celibacy stems from the nature of the priesthood itself, namely that a priest offers sacrifice (THE Sacrifice of the Mass). As we see already practiced in Old Testament times, priests rotated terms of service in the Temple and were required to practice sexual fasting during the time of their service. (We see this at the beginning of St. Luke’s gospel when he presents us with the account of Zachary and Elizabeth and the conception of John the Baptist).) So it is quite consistent with Scripture.

Following this example, but most especially the example of Christ the High Priest of the New Covenant, when married men were chosen to be deacons, priests, bishops in the early Church they were required to be continent or be disbarred from the clergy, following the Apostolic example, who themselves were following the example of Christ in giving all to the furtherance of His Kingdom.

There were simple reasons for this: the Twelve were living celibate when they left their families to follow Our Lord and so were living with and like Him. Moreover, the Apostolic Offices of the Twelve was the highest office of the Church, which the Episcopal offices comes closest to but not equal to. The continence required of bishops followed the Twelve’s vocation to live totally for the Kingdom, as Our Lord says in Matthew 19 that some are eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom.

At first this did not mean separation from one’s wife, but only separation from conjugal sex; this normally would not be a problem, since priests and bishops, and even deacons were chosen from the elders, i.e., those whose children were already raised.

The Church has always allowed couples who had no responsibilities towards offspring or others to mutually separate and enter religious life. In the first period of the Church when spirituality was higher than later (first 300 years) this was not so unusual and the Church following the practice of the Apostles as well as their example chose priests and deacons from among these spiritually mature elders, who though not separating from their wives who needed their financial and social support before such things as monasteries, lived like brothers and sisters with regard to sex. A great example of this in the West is St. Nicholas of Flue: after a prolific marriage, he and his wife spent the last 20 years in continence and he was blessed with prophecy and the grace of living only on the Eucharist (15th century, I believe).
 
mozier said:
Reform3703, he WAS talking about (Eastern-Rite Catholic) priests who DO ally themselves with the pope, so yes, they are part of the topic of discussion.

Now be honest, Reform3703 — are you posting to have a legitimate dialogue, or are you just being a TOOL?
Click to expand...
Thank you very much. I was referring to the first post on this thread when I said that. I made that post and I simply failed to confine the discussion to the Latin Rite. I think I should know my own intentions, should I not. Otherwise, I would kindly ask that you either add some legitimate dialogue and analysis to this thread or you remove yourself from it so as to allow the rest of us to benefit.
 
Rolltide said:
First, at no point did the pope ever define celibacy infallibly. In fact, it remains simply a tradition that the church could change at any time. It is NOT dogma, as proven by the fact that various exceptions have been and continue to be made. If the pope so desired, he could undo the tradition tomorrow (or change his mind again and reinstate it fifty years after that). That said, there have always been good reasons to maintain a celibate clergy, and I fail to see how celibacy causes the church to “remain in the dark ages”. You would never get an admission that the pope, “at the time”, was incorrect for opting for celibacy, even if it changed. It would simply argued that it is a good and appropriate discipline that no longer need be mandatory. Mind you, that even if the celibacy requirement was lifted, it would remain a voluntary option for all secular priests. Religious orders, which have their own regulations, would almost certainly continue to maintain the requirement for themselves, since it was a tradition for them all the way from their founding in the third century. It should also be mentioned that in the event that the celibacy requirement was lifted, it would only expand marriage to include priests. Their position would be terminal, and they could not advance to the rank of bishop or above (just as it is currently within the Eastern Catholic Churches). That is a tenant of the church that most likely could NOT change.

One thing that should be immediately pointed out… were this to change, it would likely have little effect on the priest shortage. The Orthodox have had a married clergy since the beginning, and they are experiencing a similar shortage of priests to the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I did not say at any point that it was declared as infallible. My statement was that, with the few exceptions, it has been laid down as a requirement by the Church. It does not matter so much that it could be changed if the Pope so chose. The point is that, somewhere down the line, a Pope made that choice and it has stuck since that time. Priests can’t marry once they have been ordained and, usually, they cannot be ordained if they are married already. I’m not interested in discussing the permanence of the rule. All I want to know is why it was put in place to begin with and what grounds the Pope had for doing so. The rest is another discussion.
 
manualman said:
Read those passages again. You seem to think they require bishops and priests to be be married. Think again. What culture was St Paul writing to? The pagans of the Roman empire. Ever hear of Polygamy? It was widespread back then. Infidelity and divorce/abandonment is not a new idea either. Paul is quite simply forbidding polygamists or what we’d today call divorced and remarried men from becoming priests. As you said yourself before, he OBVIOUSLY isn’t saying one MUST be married to be a priest or bishop or he’d be the biggest hypocrite in the Church.
Click to expand...
I realize that the verses are guarding against polygamy and rightfully so, priest or not. I am also aware that they are not required to take a wife if they feel that they are called to be celibate on a personal basis. However, if St. Paul had intended to say that priests should be celibate, then he would not have said what he did. He would have said that priests should not take a wife at all. Saying that they should be the husbands of one wife still leaves room for clerical marriage to a single spouse. The statement had two points to it in that regard.
 
FCEGM said:
The discipline of celibacy stems from the nature of the priesthood itself, namely that a priest offers sacrifice (THE Sacrifice of the Mass). As we see already practiced in Old Testament times, priests rotated terms of service in the Temple and were required to practice sexual fasting during the time of their service. (We see this at the beginning of St. Luke’s gospel when he presents us with the account of Zachary and Elizabeth and the conception of John the Baptist).) So it is quite consistent with Scripture.

Following this example, but most especially the example of Christ the High Priest of the New Covenant, when married men were chosen to be deacons, priests, bishops in the early Church they were required to be continent or be disbarred from the clergy, following the Apostolic example, who themselves were following the example of Christ in giving all to the furtherance of His Kingdom.
Click to expand...
This may be the most telling statement thus far. Now I can see the root of the issue. It seems that it comes down to, to some degree, the status of the Mass itself. Obviously the well-established position of the Roman Catholic Church is that the Mass is a holy sacrifice, a participation in the Passion of our Lord. If this is, indeed, true, then it comes down to a doctrinal difference on another level which has been under fire even longer then the issue of clerical celibacy itself.

If the Mass is truly a participation in the Passion and, therefore, a true sacrifice, then clerical celibacy can be justified. If, however, the Mass is not, then that justification is rendered moot.
 
Why is celibacy for priests a ‘bad’ thing to so many? The vast decrease of men being ordained for the priesthood has more to do with the culture, the lack of respect that many in our culture give to the priesthood, and the overall Protestant-ization of many Catholic parishes in the U.S., in particular. Not all, but many.

I take from reading threads like this, that people tend to think that if men could marry in the priesthood, then they would choose the priesthood. While that could be the reasoning as to why some men who are called to the priesthood, do not accept that calling. But, I believe a man must still hear that calling, and be brave to answer it, in a culture that tells him to ‘look out for number one,’ and ‘don’t sacrifice.’ I think the problem for the lack of priests in America, has more to do with OUR culture and its obsession with materialism, and dysfunctional sex.

If we look to other cultures, other countries where the ordination of men becoming priests is far higher, namely in India, what can we draw from that? Indian men can get married, lol and they have more cultural pressure to follow Hinduism than Catholicism…yet they CHOOSE to follow God’s call to the priesthood. So, if it were all about marriage…and celibacy…the decline of the priesthood would be down EVERYWHERE, not just America.
 
I used to be married. And I found when I became single, that I was able to grow closer to God spiritually better, and understand his laws in my heart and in my mind in ways I was not able to when married, because being single availed me of the opportunity to really being married to God, and that spiritual marriage gave me more insight into God and the Trinity because I had more time to be able to develop that relationship with God, that beforehand when I was married, my time was spent devoting myself to a husband and children.

Yes a married priest might be able to better assist me for marriage counselling, but a priest who is married, might not be as spiritually blessed in his relationship with the Lord and I would want spiritual assistance from a priest, more then I would want pre-marriage counselling. There are pre-marriage counsellours trained for that that one can go to.

When I go to mass, I don’t want a sermon from a priest who is tired from being up all night with a newborn. If I want to speak to someone who can emphasise what it is like to be married, be a parent, what to do with way ward teenagers, there are many other members of the parish and other professionals who can assist me in that. What I want from a priest is not someone who can emphasise with married life, or parenting. I want true spiritual direction and I believe I could only ever get that from someone who has deeply developed his relationship one to one, without the distractions of a wife and family, with God and the Trinity and Mary. One who has had the time to know the bible backwards, has had time to do readings etc that can assist me in growing closer to the Lord, that can assist me in times I want to give up or don’t know how to make sense of God at times. Someone who can keep me growing in my faith, not someone who can empathise with married life. My ex husband was an adulturer. But I wouldn’t have necessarily been able to go to a married priest and have him say, yes I know how hard it is because my own wife has been playing up with members of the parish. Yes a married priest might be able to assist me in some areas of married life better, but I think they better gift they can give me is assistance to develop my faith deeper with the Lord because through their celibate life, they have been given the time and the opportunity to do that ahead of me.

Initially after my divorce, when I felt called to stay single, I thought, I don’t think this single life is that crash hot. But over time as God became my husband more and more, I’ve been thinking, no way would I want to go back to being married again. Being married to God is by far the greater gift. As one is given the opportunity to develop that spiritual marriage and see it as a great blessing, then one can see the true gift and opportunity in living a celibate life. Sure, a spouse might be able to help a priest grow towards the Lord too, but put a few babies, toddlers and teenagers into the mix, and you have your hands full being a parent. Where is the time to develop one’s faith deeper and deeper so one can be that true spiritual Father to guard and guide his flock?

When a priest becomes a priest, he becomes our Father, we are his children, and his spouse is God. He is not without a spouse and he is not without children. He has the greater marriage if he chooses to develop it further, and he has the opportunity to be a spiritual Father to us. I want a spiritual Father in a priest, not someone who can empathase with married life from time to time.

I’ve seen a petition by many for priests to be able to marry, and at the time I thought yeah why not. And many of them were priests themselves. But when I entered the true spiritual marriage with God myself, then I realised those who think a priest should be married, and those priests who want to be married, appear not to have truly entered into that spiritual marriage with the Lord themselves.

When one sees the gift of being celibate, then one knows that God is enough of a spouse and one wishes to remain faithful to that spouse because it is a marriage. But like any marriage, it takes some effort, it takes an understanding of what that marriage means and is, and it takes a willingness to develop that marriage deeper and deeper.

I would have liked the same opportunity in my own marriage, however unfortunately my ex husband was a substance abuser, emotionally abusive and chronic adulturer who wouldn’t let me raise my children in the Faith, so after 13 yrs I chose God or should I say he chose me, and then I came around to the idea. But I know how hard it is to be married at times, and after living in both the married and celibate worlds, I know now, what is the greater type of marriage, the greater gift to myself and my children, and the greater gift to others, because as I have developed my own spiritual marriage more with God, it grants me the opportunity to assist others to do the same, and that is what a celibate priest has the opportunity to do. To use the gift of celibacy, not just for himself, but for the flock he guides over in his parish.
 
Marriage of Catholic preists is frowned upon in the Catholic Church because those who wish to follow in the footsteps of Christ were not to have wives and children. To forsake others and follow Christ.
“If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me” (Luke 8:23b)
This means give up family, friends and wife from past lives to be as Christ and teach His word and be as Christ. Celibate and without wife or children. In doing so, the Apostles were carrying their cross, in giving up family and friends in their former lives.
If anyone wishes to explain further comment or add to this I welcome their (name removed by moderator)ut.

God’s Blessings upon you ~Mary73:)
 
I know from personal experience that I had much more time for Christ when I was single, but I was also in a seminary, which would be closer to the life of a priest than just an ordinary single guy. Being married now I know that I want to share my life with my wife before anyone else, that is the promise I made to my wife on our wedding day “and the two became one flesh” a husband is/should share with his wife before anyone else (except God of course). I still would liek to be a priest, but I know that I could not be as focused, my life would be split between a parish and a wife, I would not be able to live either vocation to the best of my abilities.

A husband is one with his wife, and his duties are to his wife and children
A priest is one with Christ, and his duties are to Christ and his Church.

A man who is both, coul do the jobs, but not as well or as focused. There may be a day yet though that married priests are needed as vocations continue to dwindle, a less focused priest is better than no priest at all.
 
“I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife,” 1 Corinthians 7:32-33

Your passages certainly show that clergy were certainly allowed to marry. And they still are, in the Eastern Catholic churches. It is a discipline governed by the Church. It can be taken away and the Church will still be the same Church. Of course, I definitely think that this requirement should NEVER be taken away from the Latin Rite.

I’m not even going to get into it! LOL! God bless you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top