Posted on 06/22/2014 2:42:07 PM PDT by NYer
Married, not married, Celibate, has nothing to do to determine the ability of the person to act as a counselor. Feel free to have the last word.
Well, considering that Jesus went to Peter's house and healed his mother-in-law from a fever she had, one could conclude, yes.
If the Catholic Church thinks Priests should be celibate then that is their prerogative. If they think these guys should be like monks who live and breathe their faith 100% of the time, then they should make that clear.
In my personal Christianity I don't see "church leaders" as anything higher than those sitting in the pews, they are also sinners, they should have the job of carrying and preaching the message. If they fail that, they need replaced.
All he can do is advise people based on anecdotal evidence from other people.
He can counsel them based on scripture and church teachings, which is what one expect from a man of the cloth and not a psychologist I think.
Why would people expect more than that?
I would expect unmarried church leaders to be about as good marriage counselors as computer programmers. They can tell us what God wants and how we are expected to behave toward each other, but after that.... *crickets*.
I was responding to this question of yours.
“So are you suggesting that the Catholic Church force all priests to be married?” It never even entered my mind. I don’t see how you could have gotten it out of my comment.
It should be the choice of the man.
A wife can be a tremendous encouragement to a man in the ministry.
While being married can have it’s issues, being alone is not all it’s cracked up to be either. A single person has to take care of all the day to day mundane things in addition to working, that a spouse can help with.
There’s pros and cons to both positions and the individual himself is the best person to determine which would work out best for him.
Freeing up married men to become priests would provide more than enough men to carry the work load without them having to compromise their families.
Easy. You referred to a “married clergy” being able to get rid of the gays. If single men are still allowed there is still a chance for gay clergy. In that post you made no mention of choice. And I wasn’t sure what you meant. That’s why I asked.
And like I said, I’m not arguing about Catholic celibacy. My issue is the gay clergy.
I heard an interesting point on Catholic Answers Radio about a month ago on this issue.
Apparently, Scripture records St. Peter had a mother-in-law yes, but no where does it record his wife was still alive, either when he met Jesus or anytime after that.
So it’s entirely possible he was a widower when he met Jesus.
Also, and this is what I found particularly interesting I don’t know why I didn’t think of it, he was at his mother-in-law’s house and she was the one waiting on them. I do believe if his wife was alive at the time, she would have been the one waiting on them at his (their) house.
That is interesting.
There are some areas of marriage that an unmarried marriage counselor simply cannot give advice on.
It's all good in theory. When it comes to the practical application, they have no experience.
I read a great book once called *And Then I had Kids* written by a lady who had all the answers for child reading until God blessed her with a bunch of kids of her own, including a boisterous set of twins.
And honestly, who would expect someone without children to be qualified to give advice on raising children?
Yet somehow, an unmarried marriage counselor works?
Jesus was unmarried. Would you consider his advice on marriage valueless?
Are your priests perfect like Jesus was?
Do they know everything?
I can’t think of any either.
Well, if you aren’t Catholic, it ain’t your board!
Alternatively, Catholic busybodies have no reason to strut around on non-Catholic boards. Just sayin...
Scripture mentions Peter's mother in law; hence, he had a wife. However, she is nowhere mentioned. I find this strange. Imagine the scene. There is the mother-in-law, lying in bed. At her side, as one would expect, is her dutiful daughter—except that Matthew and Luke make no reference to her daughter. Leaving her out of the story is strange. It is not the way a writer would be expected to handle the incident, since a daughter usually is the one most frantic about a mother’s condition. The story is tantalizingly brief. Maybe the Evangelists decided to leave out all but the most salient facts. Or maybe it was because Peter’s wife wasn’t there—she already may have died. I think this is the most likely explanation for her non-appearance.
Then we should also dismiss the teachings of Christ and St. Paul on marriage, since neither of them was married.
Lighten up, Francis, you're getting hyperbolic! This non-Catholic Christian (Protestant is a term you guys use for ALL those who claim to be Christian but who aren't Roman Catholic) doesn't HATE the Catholic church, just the false and accursed gospel CatholicISM teaches. If you're looking for depravity, that church doorstep needs a good sweeping.
“Then we should also dismiss the teachings of Christ and St. Paul on marriage, since neither of them was married.”
Did I SAY to dismiss unmarried counselors, or say “their celibacy does not make them superior as marriage counselors”?
Hmmmm?
Since the scriptural normal, per Timothy, was for Overseers (Bishops) to be married, should we reject marriage advice from all married men?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.