*Catholics only* A case for priestly celibacy

LOL....That’s not me arguing. If you have to say it.......

Lol...

.

staff edit

Click to expand...

very interesting points!
thank you so much for sharing your views on this

I for one find the concerns of "clericalism" to be over hyped
in ages when it could be argued that clericalism was a real problem, well you had vibrant Catholic cultures that influenced politics, arts, and family life/social norms

of course it was not perfect, life never is, but now we have an outright rejection of Christianity

the Priest is made holy by God, he acts in persona christi, he can bless bread and wine and confect the Eucharist
so yes, the priest is special

staff edit

Click to expand...

Thank you for posting so charitably, I apologize for your respectful remarks being reacted to harshly. Some people have a very hard time understanding that a criticism of a poor argument is not an attack on their belief. You are correct, while there are many good arguments for Priestly celibacy, the one you mentioned is not an example of one.

Was Peter less of a priest or Pope because he was married?

I'm sorry, but the Church had the originally tradition of allowing married priests, and it was a long history of allowing married priests.

Furthermore, the REASON for moving to mandatory celibacy is not the reasons given in the article. It had to do with protecting church property from corrupt priests who passed it on to their sons. And THAT is a problem much better solved in other ways.

I for one would like for priests to have a CHOICE before they are ordained whether to be married or be celibate. I think we are missing out on a lot of talented and highly spiritual men who have all the gifts of a good priest except that they are not called to celibacy.

There is no evidence that Peter was married when he became an Apostle

The Bible talks about his mother in law
Not his wife, this points to him being a widower
Jesus heals his mother in law, and she gets up and serves them, if Peter was married then his wife would have been serving the guests

Rhamiel said:

There is no evidence that Peter was married when he became an Apostle

The Bible talks about his mother in law
Not his wife, this points to him being a widower
Jesus heals his mother in law, and she gets up and serves them, if Peter was married then his wife would have been serving the guests

Click to expand...

Where does it say that only his mother in law was serving?

Rhamiel, Jewish law states that a Jewish man is born to Torah, Chuppah (Marriage) and Maasim Tovim (good deeds). He is literally violating the law if he willfully resists marrying, having children, and pleasuring his wife. There are exceptions where a man is denied marriage, but that's basically the rule. Jewish men got married. That would be Peter, and all the other Apostles. Since Jesus didn't marry, he must have met one of the criteria which lawfully excluded him.

Open Heart said:

Where does it say that only his mother in law was serving?

Rhamiel, Jewish law states that a Jewish man is born to Torah, Chuppah (Marriage) and Maasim Tovim (good deeds). He is literally violating the law if he willfully resists marrying, having children, and pleasuring his wife. There are exceptions where a man is denied marriage, but that's basically the rule. Jewish men got married. That would be Peter, and all the other Apostles. Since Jesus didn't marry, he must have met one of the criteria which lawfully excluded him.

Click to expand...

There is no mention of Peters wife in Scripture or Tradition, I am not sure about the other Apostles but it seems clear that Peter and probably Paul were not married

Rhamiel said:

There is no mention of Peters wife in Scripture or Tradition, I am not sure about the other Apostles but it seems clear that Peter and probably Paul were not married

Click to expand...

Clear as mud.

Paidiske said:

In 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul suggests that Peter travelled with a "believing wife."

Click to expand...

My Bible does not say wife, what translation are you using?

Didn’t Jesus cure Peter’s mother in law? Just sayin’.

AvilaSurfer said:

Didn’t Jesus cure Peter’s mother in law? Just sayin’.

Click to expand...

How does that prove anything? His wife couldve passed away early in life leaving her mother and husband behind.

Today I learned that there are people who believe that a lack of mention of Peter’s wife constitutes reason to believe that she was deceased.

I would never have let my wife serve my pals. My Mother In Law could have cleaned their wheels with her toothbrush for all I cared.

Stabat Mater said:

How does that prove anything? His wife couldve passed away early in life leaving her mother and husband behind.

Click to expand...

Yeah, lots of possibilities I guess. I just like to stir it up y’know.

MikeK said:

Today I learned that there are people who believe that a lack of mention of Peter’s wife constitutes reason to believe that she was deceased.

I would never have let my wife serve my pals. My Mother In Law could have cleaned their wheels with her toothbrush for all I cared.

Click to expand...

Ignores the social norms of first century Palestine (and the entire near east in general)
I am sure you would not do many things that the first Apostles did, what is your point?

Rhamiel said:

Ignores the social norms of first century Palestine (and the entire near east in general)
I am sure you would not do many things that the first Apostles did, what is your point?

Click to expand...

My point is that a lack of mention of a person in a brief historical account of an event does not constitute a suggestion that they dead at the time. That is a strange belief to hold, given the lack of evidence either way.

Rhamiel said:

My Bible does not say wife, what translation are you using?

Click to expand...

Mine does and I am using the NAB.

MikeK said:

My point is that a lack of mention of a person in a brief historical account of an event does not constitute a suggestion that they dead at the time. That is a strange belief to hold, given the lack of evidence either way.

Click to expand...

The same is assumed regarding the absent of St Joseph later on in the gospels...
This isnt my assumption, but one commonly held by biblical scholars. Well believe what you like