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.
I think you make a reasonable argument. Since it is a subjective topic, there will be different opinions, which could all be equally valid.
Now, how did the thread go so far afield?
A priest marries the Church and it’s people. This is a lot more complicated then bickering about who left the cap off the toothpaste.
If you meant something different you should have written something different.