Not having sex in a marriage is unBiblical, except by agreement, for a short time, for prayer.
Indeed.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207:1-11&version=KNOX
However, I do respect those who live chaste lives in our sex-obsessed society. I wonder if married Anglican and other Protestant priests who become Roman Catholic have to follow the celibacy rule as well?
Many Saints in heaven agreed to live mutually celibate and respectful lives with their spouses. I know of one whose body is incorrupt.
Why do you throw stones?
You mean just because
• God/Christ describes marriage as "cleaving" and becoming one flesh, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4,5)
• and there is no example of celibate marriage anywhere in Scripture btwn two adults able to procreate,
• and celibacy for such is only advocated in the context of being single, (Mt. 19:10-12; 1Cor. 7:8)
• and Paul restricts abstinence to only a period of fasting, and then to come together again,
• and teaches that celibacy is a gift, (1Cor. 7:1,7)
• and in no way evidences that all clergy are presumed to have it,
• but instead lists marriage and raising children as normal credentials for ministry "(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" - 1 Timothy 3:5)
then you think mandating celibacy for priests (not to mention that is never what pastors are distinctively titled by the Holy Ghost) is uinBiblical?
But when did Scripture become the supreme authority for Rome,
or when was Scriptural warrant necessary for doctrine (or even reasons behind infallible decrees held as necessarily infallible)
or when did anything Scripture say have authority unless Rome interpreted thusly?
Yet as some attempt must be made (in condescension to pesky Protestants) by RCAs to provide some sort of Scriptural warrant for traditions of men, you have forgotten that they are endowed with a amazing gift of extrapolating what is needed to provide some Scriptural warrant (like 1 Cor. 3 as teaching purgatory )
Thus, out of, "this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none," (1 Corinthians 7:29) is extrapolated support for lifelong celibacy; which, to be consistent, means that Christians can no longer show weeping, or rejoicing, or use things they possess, (1Cor. 7:30), rather than just living in consecration and holiness as the Lord enjoined, (Lk. 21:34) not preoccupied with cares of this life, and in which fasting and sexual relations can both be enjoined to, and marriage bed be declared undefiled. (Heb. 13:4)
And it is a standard and safe rule in exegesis to interpret the unclear texts in the light of the clear.
However, as other sola ecclesia groups go to extremes, with the LDS exalting sex above which is written, Catholics have gone to the other extreme, and in so doing exampled more exegetical errors, even holding that all marital relations are unclean, as they could not be effected without the ardour of lust, this being carnal concupiscence, though it is “no longer accounted sin in the regenerate."
Jerome (engaging in a false dilemma) reasoned that since 1Cor. 7:1 says "it is good not to touch a woman, [then] it is bad to touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness." And that since men must always pray, ministers could not be married, and invoked Genesis 7 as proving that "two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact." (More: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=311#311)
All this is not meant to demean celibacy in consecration toward God, nor must this particular priest be celibate (Rome makes allowances for those who enter the priest hood married), but refutes the idea that it should be presumed that those called to ministry normally have the gift of celibacy. That is simply presumptuous and asking for trouble.
You're right, but she is agreeable.
She's willing to give up their sex life with her blessing......
I'm not going to comment.
Unless you are Marry and Joseph.
Right 'church'?