Peter's wife still alive?

[Julius_Caesar]

Except… he didn’t. He used Peter as an example of someone who had the power / authority to do so.

So if not why does Paul argue for his celibacy?

 

[Gorgias]

So if not why does Paul argue for his celibacy?

He’s not arguing for his celibacy, as such, here.

We’re kinda missing the forest for the trees, folks. This is Paul’s argument against license – ‘freedom’, if you wish – to the Corinthians. “All things are lawful for me”, remember, in chapter 6?

Paul points out that they shouldn’t be saying, “what? why can’t I have a leg of lamb from the pagan temple? If someone else can’t handle it, then that’s their problem, not mine !!” And in chapter 9, Paul goes into this extended example of his own life, as a means of showing that doing things just because you can isn’t the way of life for a Christian.

In that context, it isn’t about whether Paul or Barnabas have a honey or a wife or a PA – or even whether Peter has a wife! It’s about Paul using the example of his life, and the ways in which he doesn’t take all the bennies to which he’s entitled, and how this should be a lesson for the Corinthians to quit playing the “he who dies with the most toys wins” game. It’s not about license to do what you want; it’s about the freedom to do what’s good and loving.

Traveling women? Peter’s wife? Not part of the bigger picture here.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

He’s not arguing for his celibacy, as such, here.

He does it later.

Paul’s whole shtick in this passage is him arguing about how he has the right to do stuff but chooses not to. Like how he should be paid and does not get paid.

The same goes for celibacy.

Paul’s saying he has the right to have a wife go with him, a right that Peter and the brothers of the Lord exercise.

We know from that same letter his reasons for not doing this.

 

[Gorgias]

He does it later.

In a different context.

 

[BartholomewB]

I read the objections to the obvious interpretation of Corinthians that Peter’s wife joined him in his ministry,

I agree with @jack63. The most obvious interpretaton is that Peter took his wife with him on his travels. However, it’s still only an interpretation, and other interpretations are possible.

 

[Gorgias]

The most obvious interpretaton is that Peter took his wife with him on his travels.

To me, it seems obvious that our modern, western preoccupation with clerical celibacy is what is driving the exegesis. YMMV.

 

[BartholomewB]

To me, it seems obvious that our modern, western preoccupation with clerical celibacy is what is driving the exegesis. YMMV.

I fully agree! My M doesn’t V from yours in the slightest. The readers who are upset by this seem to be worried that, if the news gets out that Peter and some other apostles were allowed to take their wives with them on their missionary journeys in the first century, that means that the kind of people who read the National Catholic Reporter and who favor Liberation Theology will have a strong argument for changing the rules today, just as they tried to do last October at the Amazon Synod.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

We need to remember that celibacy is a discipline and not a doctrine.

 

[jack63]

National Catholic Reporter

Seriously though…since you brought it up…this is what the National Catholic Reporter actually thinks about changing clerical celibacy.

So I dug up the opinion article where the NCR deeply questions whether to change the celibacy requirement over concerns married priests won’t be progressive enough. The NCR has an agenda, and I would doubt if they really care about men who genuinely have a calling to both marriage and priesthood.

On changing mandatory celibacy: We must be careful what we wish for | National Catholic Reporter

From the article

Much as I would love to see the teaching on celibacy change, I’m also aware that just because the priesthood opens up to married men does not mean it opens up to progressive, justice-oriented, married men. As we push for the lifting of mandatory celibacy, we must be aware that a change that could appear to be “progress” could have a dark side…

:man_facepalming:t2:

 

[BartholomewB]

Thank you for that, @jack63. The NCR column reads like a parody. “It’s no good allowing married priests unless they’re going to allow gay and lesbian priests as well!”

The prime mover behind the Amazon Synod was Erwin Kräutler, who until his retirement a couple of years ago was the bishop of a vast, sprawling, underpopulated prelature on the fringe of the Amazon region in Brazil. He was a keen supporter of Liberation Theology. I mentioned him a few times in earlier threads here at CAF:

Married men may be considered for the priesthood? Liturgy and Sacraments

I think I remember posting something about this here at CAF a few years back, when Erwin Kräutler was still the bishop of the prelature of Xingu in Brazil. He campaigned strenuously, for years on end, both for women and for married men to be ordained priests, to meet the need for bringing the Eucharist to the scattered communities in his vast, sparsely populated prelature. Under Benedict XVI he realized he was getting nowhere, but when Francis was elected he renewed his campaign, believing he m…

 

[jack63]

The NCR column reads like a parody. “It’s no good allowing married priests unless they’re going to allow gay and lesbian priests as well!”

Not every person who supports allowing more men to be ordained priests believes that or are even progressive. I would go so far as to say that most men who feel some calling to both marriage and priesthood aren’t progressive.