Why Did Jesus Never Get Married

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seagull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mboo said:
ikewise the sacrament of marriage is advantageous for those who can not live saintly in celibacy
Click to expand...
That’s not the only reason to marry. In fact, it’s not a good reason to marry. If a couple came into my office and told me they wanted to get married because they can’t control themselves, I would have serious reservations about marrying them. Unless they intend a permanent, fruitful, and exclusive union with one another, they do not enter into marriage rightly. You seem to have a rather low view of what marriage is supposed to be.
 
edward_george1 said:
That’s not the only reason to marry. In fact, it’s not a good reason to marry. If a couple came into my office and told me they wanted to get married because they can’t control themselves, I would have serious reservations about marrying them
Click to expand...
I did not think here of sexual continence only.
There are people who are unable to devote themselves totally to the service of the neighbor except when it is their child. This means that if they do not have their own children, they will shut themselves up in a disorganized egoism.
 
Mboo said:
Jesus taught that there is no intrinsic benefit to getting married, as Jesus practices what he teaches, so he is unmarried to show us a good example.
Click to expand...
That’s a unique interpretation, to say the least.
 
If that’s what they go into marriage with, it won’t be a good marriage.

But in any event, your assertion was not “some people can’t be sanctified by marriage,” which is certainly true. People can be closed to the graces of any sacrament and not benefit from them. Your assertion was that there was no intrinsic benefit to marriage, and that Jesus taught this. That’s what I’m challenging as being untrue.
 
Mboo said:
This means that if they do not have their own children, they will shut themselves up in a disorganized egoism.
Click to expand...
Rather an uncharitable characterization of childless people. Does this extend to people who are unmarried? That an unmarried person can’t devote themselves to the service of others because they’re shut up in a disorganized egoism? This would imply that celibate priests are in disorganized egoism.

By extension, if the celibate priests are following Christ’s example, then Jesus was also shut up in disorganized egoism.
 
Last edited:
I wanted to say that there is an advantage in getting married for one who can not live a holy life in celibacy, otherwise celibacy should be preferred to marriage. When the Church declares by dogma the superiority of sacred celibacy over marriage, it is a way of saying that one should prefer celibacy to marriage.
That’s what Jesus himself taught in the gospels, and Saint Paul was very explicit about it.
So we have in the same time: the teaching of Jesus, the teaching of St Paul, and the dogma of the Church and in addition all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church who unanimously say that celibacy should be preferred to marriage
 
on_the_hill said:
That an unmarried person can’t devote themselves to the service of others because they’re shut up in a disorganized egoism?
Click to expand...
Why do you make me say what I did not say? I said that if someone is selfish in his celibacy then marriage can help him! I did not say that singles are all selfish!
 
Last edited:
You said that people without children are shut up in disorganized egoism, and that they are not able to care for other people. I’m asking if that selfishness extends to unmarried people.
 
St. Peter, the cornerstone upon whom the Church was built, was married.
 
That doesn’t mean anything close to “there is no intrinsic benefit to marriage.” There is nothing about that statement that in any way means that marriage is not somehow beneficial by its nature.
 
on_the_hill said:
You said that people without children are shut up in disorganized egoism, and that they are not able to care for other people. I’m asking if that selfishness extends to unmarried people
Click to expand...
this is not what I meant (I use a translator, so it may have misunderstanding). I meant that for some person (not everyone! ok?) who are selfish, a family life can help them
 
Not necessarily. Selfishness can exist whether someone is married or celibate, just as any other vice can be present in anyone of any state in life. It might help, but family life isn’t the magic pill that makes a grumpy celibate into a saint.
 
please do not hang on to words, but see the meaning I gave in my words in my comments that followed.
I wanted to say that marriage is not absolutely advantageous (like the Eucharist), but that it is only advantageous for those who can not live a holy life in celibacy. This is the summary of what I say. That’s all!
 
edward_george1 said:
It might help, but family life isn’t the magic pill that makes a grumpy celibate into a saint.
Click to expand...
I never said it’s magic! I said that a family life can force him out of his selfishness, when he will be facing his duties as parents and husband.
I did not say that a family life will certainly help them, but that a family life can help them.
 
Last edited:
But this isn’t true. Marriage isn’t for people who can’t live celibately. It’s for people who are called to enter into a permanent, exclusive, and fruitful union with one another. It’s not just a consolation prize for people who can’t handle celibacy.
 
Okay, but if there’s no intrinsic benefit to marriage, why do you then say that getting married would have a benefit, namely that it helps with selfishness? You contradict yourself.
 
Sacred celibacy should be preferred to marriage because it is intrinsically superior to marriage.
 
That’s a separate question. It’s not the same thing as saying that there’s no intrinsic benefit to marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top