My mistake it was Mr. Rogers post 57. But the truth is still there. those were his words. I don’t know of any requirement that marriage counselors be married.
Here are my words from post 57:
“My argument was with the idea that someone who doesn’t marry in an attempt to serve God is not superior in qualification as a marriage counselor to someone who is married to an imperfect, sinful spouse.”
Did I say marriage counselors MUST be married, or that a celibate counselor is not automatically superior to a married one? [Note: rereading it, I had one too many “not”s in the sentence from bad editing. However, my argument on this thread has been consistent and clear.]
As I said in another post on this thread:
“The specific sentence I pointed out was this one:
“Without denigrating the noble vocation of marriage, it can rightly be said that the couple undertaking marriage can find no better guide to understanding the essential nature of the gift of self than the celibate priest who has emptied himself in imitation of Christ.”
I am arguing that a celibate priest is not, due to his celibacy, superior as a marriage counselor. The celibate priest supposedly gives himself to God, who is perfect. That is not a good preparation for giving yourself to an imperfect human.
Nobody said that they SHOULD be married. But, if you were having serious marriage problems would you feel confident in going to a marriage counselor that has never been married, has no plans to ever get married and who cannot speak from experience about the problems married people have?