You can’t compare any job to a priest’s job.
Sure, an attorney can work more hours than a priest, but does an attorney’s job always involve in bringing people to Jesus.
I didn’t compare a priest’s job to any other job. You started this by saying that if a priest was married, he would not have time either for the family or for his ministry. I simply pointed out that such a statment is based more on the thinking that having a job(your words), or a ministry (in terms of the priest) or a profession (my words) applies to a lot of people who have much more than a 40 hour week.
The point I was making, since you did not understand my post, is that people can be married and have a very demanding job(your words), ministry (the priest) or profession (my words). The Church has survived for 2000 years with a married clergy. Is it optimal? I would suspect that most people who have a more than 40 hour a week job/ministry/profession would tell you it is not optimal. But then, people continue to manage it. There are Catholic married priests in the Roman rite, and ministers in Protestant Churches who will tell you that it puts a strain on them and their family; but then, so will anyone who works more than 40 hours. That is not a reason to prevent married men from being ordained. Further, Vatican 2 brought back the permanent deaconite, and as more of them are available for parish work, more of the load will be lifted off the priest as he delegates his work load.
A priest has few thousands of souls to take care of.
When you become a priest, your family is your parish. You’re “married” to the parish.
Which is about the level of a slap in the face to the many married clergy in the Eastern rites, and not particularly responsive to the issue.
Doesn’t the Bible say “a virgin does better than a married man”?
Which doesn’t mean that it is mandatory. As I noted above, both married clergy - Roman rite Catholics and Protestant, as well as numerous individuals who work more than 40 hour weeks would tell you the additional time stresses them and families. When Paul says that it is better, he doesn’t say it is mandatory but rather the preferred option.
I would not ever anticipate, should the Church change its rule for the Western rite, that married priests would ever make up the majority.
32 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. 33 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. 34 And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
Considering that the Church through Christ has raised up marriage to the level of one of the 7 Sacraments, and treats it, as well as priesthood, as a vocation, I would say that Paul was making a point about priesthood, but doing so by poor-mouthing marriage. She that thinketh on pleasing her husband is doing the work of Christ. Again, Paul is not making celibacy mandatory. Had he done so, it is entirely possbile the Church would no longer exist, as it does so only as we follow God’s command to be fruitful and multiply, and last time I checked, celibacy was not producing too many children.
37 For he that hath determined being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will; and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well.
Again, not particularly responsive.
