Pope Francis – married men could be ordained priests if world's bishops agree on it

The Tablet ^ | April 10, 2014 | Christa Pongratz-Lippitt

[ebb tide]

A bishop who met with Pope Francis in a rare private audience on 4 April has said in an interview that the two men discussed the issue of the ordination of “proven” married men – viri probati – in a serious and positive way.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I would agree that celibacy is not natural to the human race: in the case of consecrated or vowed celibacy, it's supernatural. Naturally, if it were motivated by a malign will or disgust at the other sex, it would be no such thing.

On the other hand, virginity past the age if puberty, and faithful exclusive lifelong monogamy, are not natural to the human race, or do not seem to be. It may require just as much sexual self-restraint --- even, asceticism --- to be faithfully monogamous, as it does to be celibate, especially in periods of tensions, strife, physical distance, illness or disability, or incapacity on the part of one or both spouses.

The Church has never taught that priestly celibacy is required by either St. Paul or Christ; only that it was esteemed by them as excellent.

(Youthful virginity and lifelong, no-divorce marriage was esteemed by them, too! In fact, no-divorce, lifelong fidelity was required of all the married. Preach ardently on that these days, and see what happens amongst the congregation!)

[Mrs. Don-o]

Not sure about Jesus not embarking upon his public mission until the age of 30, has to do with what you propose as a universal obligation to marry.

[ravenwolf]

Not sure about Jesus not embarking upon his public mission until the age of 30, has to do with what you propose as a universal obligation to marry.>>>>>

---

I proposed no such thing, I was only using the same scripture that the anti Mormon people make against polygamy, which in turn doses not make me a Mormon or a polygamist.

Also your last post
So marriage is obligatory for all? Are they going to be allowed to finish high school first?>>>>
>>>>
You pose questions like that what kind of answers do you expect.

[ravenwolf]

Qualifications for Bishops

1 Tim 3
1
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3
Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4
One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5
For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

6
Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

7
Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Qualifications for Deacons

1 Tim 3
8
Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

9
Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

10
And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

11
Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

13
For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK, then I officially don't get why you wrote "I will use the very same scripture to show you that it is an abomination for a man not to have a wife."

If it's an abomination for a man not to have a wife, you have to ask at what age it becomes an abomination. Puberty? (That would be biologically plausible.) Hgh school graduation? (Brings him to or near the 18-year mark.) Or when?

Mine was an obviously silly question following on a silly proposal that it is an abominable sin for a man not to marry.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

It's not a prescription, it's a proscription. It's simply another way of saying that a bishop cannot be divorced and remarried, or twice-married.

Otherwise, St. Paul's words make no sense. Paul commends celibacy, he was celibate himself, and he was a bishop.

2 Tim 1: 6 -- For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands

1 Tim 4:14 -- Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood

[ravenwolf]

It’s not a prescription, it’s a proscription. It’s simply another way of saying that a bishop cannot be divorced and remarried, or twice-married.
Otherwise, St. Paul’s words make no sense. Paul commends celibacy, he was celibate himself, and he was a bishop.

---

If it was a proscription or a prescription is not really the point, it was instructions given to timothy in how to discern the qualifications of a deacon or bishop.

Having been the husband of one wife may have been just what you say but I suspect this would have been unfair to those who had lost wives in death, so it could be exactly like it says, that a bishop or deacon must be the husband of one wife.

2 Tim 1: 6
1 Tim 4:14
has nothing to do with the subject.

[ravenwolf]

following on a silly proposal that it is an abominable sin for a man not to marry.

---

I guess because it is satire to me I never thought any one would take it serous, maybe I need to add( satire).

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

2 Tim 1: 6 1 Tim 4:14 has nothing to do with the subject.

These passages demonstrate that St. Paul was a bishop, since Paul laid hands on Timothy, and Holy Orders are passed on by the laying on of hands by a bishop. (Priests cannot ordain).