Actually I was referring to Luke:
Ah, okay, sorry. We have a cross comparison then which is interesting. One account details loved people who in the other account constitutes everything in the person’s “life”.
First, from the two accounts, does this show that our Lord understands that after Him it is people who are
everything - it is
people who make up our “life”?!
Second, and more relevant to the thread, is that St. Peter was the Rock upon which the Church is built.
The other apostles were not. Though their apostleship are also the fibres that make up the foundations of the Church.
My point is that maybe St. Peter had to make a bigger sacrifice to grow into the person whom he was to become (also entwined in that which he was to represent) - maybe he had to sacrifice his wife’s company for our Lord, and if we remember that Abraham was tested, then possibly this is not so surprising.
It would not, therefore, be necessary for the other apostles to be married. (St. John I would have thought was too young anyway and he went on to live in Our Lady’s company so unlikely from that point-of-view also).
Furthermore, this tells us that in order for people to follow our Lord (as St. Paul said) as absolutely as one could, when called specifically, we must literally leave everything behind as if we hated those things, due to those things (and people) being far less necessary, even evil, when in comparison to following Him. Just as it tells us that those who understand married life being their lot, are to still put our Lord first, throughout, even before the spouse - the Abraham link coming in again - if/when certain decisions would mean going against our faith and that of the Church!
In Catholic life we have extremes and we have the tonal shades inbetween. St. Peter leaving his wife for the sake of the Kingdom could be such an extreme, unless of course, as a poster pointed out, the wife had already died. Suffering is an invitation to our Lord to walk into our lives. He might have been an example for us not to “look back”. Of course, we don’t know if his wife became a disciple later on, but I think it is one of the first two possibilties because otherwise I think Scripture would have spoken of his wife again. I think it is likely she died. Our Lord did speak about no man dividing man and woman when married so this variation makes the most sense from that angle too although we know our Lord was fully Divine and so had the authority to judge over such a decision.
On the subject of using ‘Roman Catholic’. There are many Churches with the title ‘Roman Catholic’ and although it is that ‘Catholic’ would suffice, while the word ‘Roman’ is used, I will continue to use it, when necessary (sometimes I will use the title ‘Catholic’). We could say the same for the title ‘Christian’ but while there are protestant varieties I will continue to use the title ‘Catholic’ or ‘Roman Catholic’ when necessary. Thanks.
There are no married priests in the Roman Catholic Church, minus the Ordinariate, but as you have pointed out there do appear to be married Catholic priests. But this article seems to suggest that it is not a typical situation even in the Maronite Church.