“You mean there isn’t a continuity from Paul’s recommendation to stay celibate if one could?”
It was never more than a recommendation for those who could. It also always balanced it with the allowance for marriage for those who couldn’t. (And the Catholic priesthood contains amny man who tried and couldn’t, and yet weren’t afforded the appropriate escape from sin.) Go read 1 Corinthians 7 - there is no way it supports an absolute requirement for celibacy (nor was it exclusively talking about church leaders.)
7:1b-2 - It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
7:8-9 - But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
The qualifications for church leadership always list “a husband of one wife” as one of the requirements. (1 Timothy 3:2,12, Titus 1:6
If you look at the historical interpretation, post 2 is correct.
In regards to Bible verses, consider also, Genesis 2:18
“It is not good for man to be alone.”
Also, Hebrews 13:4, “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.”
I am not a Roman Catholic but don’t have much sympathy for people who join a religion and then try to change its rules. The priests knew when they signed up that celibacy was part of the faith. I imagine the agenda goes a lot further than the celibacy thing; they are probably trying to undermine lots of the basic tenets of Roman Catholicism.
But I have a hard time with phrases characterizing celibacy as “a sign of absolute commitment to God,” as though those people who aren’t celibate can’t be absolutely committed to God as well.
It seems to me, from Scripture, that some of us are called to celibacy and some aren’t; but the ones called to celibacy aren’t necessarily the super-holy.
Thanks.