Your interpretation of the chapter in question is valid, but general enough to be applied to the entire Bible. The literal, word for word reading of this chapter unarguably shows that St. Paul (inspired by God Himself) considers celibacy to be a higher calling than married life, even though being married and engaging in sexual relations with your spouse is not by any means sinful.
Your examples of Moses and Mary are nice, but they did not serve in the sacramental priesthood. And I’m not even saying that a married priesthood is a no-no, but rather that God loves celibacy! I would be hesitant, also, to conclude from a love of wife and children that a man would make a good priest.
Read this article, specifically, scroll down to the section called “Origin”.
newadvent.org/cathen/02561a.htm
According to this article, ancient practice was for a married man to be ordained, but then for him to be celibate, even in his married state!
Please! Context!
1 Tim 3:1-5 “It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),”
If one merely quotes “must be above reproach, the husband of one wife” then perhaps someone might buy the arguement that Paul was saying not to be married more than once, but not necessarily married. However, Paul goes on: “He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his household, how will he take care of the church of God?”
Why does Paul say this? Look at the state of our Church today? Our priests are leading with control and dignity? Is that what these settlements reflect? Is that why many “Catholics” do not know the gospel, let alone Scripture?
“Your examples of Moses and Mary are nice, but they did not serve in the sacramental priesthood.”
Wow, they are “nice”, the ark of the covenant “nice”? How about Aaron, or the first Pope Peter. Is that more holy than Mary and Moses? How about John XI 931-935, son of Pope Sergius III?
futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm
“I would be hesitant, also, to conclude from a love of wife and children that a man would make a good priest.”
And I would be hesitant to conclude that renouncing marriage, as God made man and woman, would make a man a good priest.
In regards to 1 Cor 7, there are reasons to believe Paul was a widower, which would lend more cohesiveness to what he writes, in my opinion. Even in verses 25-26 Paul writes: “Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.”
He is giving an opinion in view of the present distress, and states that he is giving an opinion, and does not have a command of the Lord concerning virgins. And yet the surrounding verses are so often quoted and interpreted without regard for these disclaimers or context.
Regardless, Jesus did not teach celibacy, so neither would Paul. When did Jesus ever teach renouncing something God had created as good? He was teaching not to renounce marriage by divorcing and thus risk committing adultery, and what do the apostles reflexively do? Renounce the idea of marriage all together. So does Jesus say, great understanding? Or does He correct them in Mt 19? Why did Jesus call a married man as the first disciple and Pope?
Michael
