Posted on 07/13/2017 11:02:45 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Exactly! Like I insist on seeing only a female MD when my ovaries in trouble.
Know what this here priest’s problem is? He doesn’t know enough about Catholicism.
Thanks for replying. And yes.
A Catholic widower with children can also become a Catholic priest.
.
You really can’t blame him for his lack of knowledge; he was ordained in 1975.
Yeah, I do blame him. He had a long clerical career -—decades -— in which he could have acquainted himself with the basics of Catholic Doctrine. I charge him with pastoral malpractice evidenced by lack of due diligence.
One could then say the same for Pope Francis; he was ordained in 1969.
True enough.
Try to find one liberal anywhere of any faith or none who accepts abortion, ‘gay marriage’ and female clergy but who also thinks the Catholic discipline of celibacy should continue. I’ve never found one, liberals invariably can’t stand Catholic celibacy for some reason.
Freegards
The Church does allow married priests. We allow Anglican priests to be married. We allow Orthodox and Lutheran priests to be married. We even allow Zoroastrian priests to be married. The Church has never forbidden them to be married.
Not a Scriptural teaching.
This is what Paul commands concerning those whom God calls as leaders.
QUALIFICATIONS FOR DEACION AND ELDER
1 Timothy 3:1-13 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
Titus 1:5-16 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
And, of course, Catholics conveniently ignore the fact that the Catholic church had married priests for a good part of their history.
There is NOTHING that precludes a man from serving God while married, even in the function of a priest.
I notice that you also did not address the fact that there are married priests within the Roman right and other flavors of Catholicism, such as the Orthodox and they manage to make it work.
Besides, JESUS, NOT priests, is the bridegroom of the Bride, His church.
FWIW, forbidding to marry is considered a sign of false teachers according the the Scripture Catholics claim their church wrote.
1 Timothy 4:1-5 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
I never said it had anything to do with Scripture.
I’m saying that from what I see, and have experienced, and know the level of dedication it takes for a priest to do his job right, and a father of a wife and children to do his, it is virtually impossible to do both satisfactorily and consistently.
As far as saying priests are ‘married’ to the Church, I meant that figuratively, much like someone is ‘married’ to their career in business.
Try to keep your disdain for the Catholic Church at bay.
Oh the horror....a married priest. Just like Peter and the disciples.
Somehow Peter, you remember Peter don’t you, and the other disciples were married and were able to spread the Gospel.
This argument was never logical to me. If I have a psychological problem, should I only go to a psychologist who actually experienced the same problem?
RE: I’ve never found one, liberals invariably can’t stand Catholic celibacy for some reason.
The only question I have about tagging the word “liberal” to married priests is this — Biblically, bishops were expected to be married. Even the Apostle Peter was married.
In the Bible, 1 Cor 9:5 clearly indicates that “apostles, like other Christians, have a right to be (and many of them are) married” and the right for their wife to be “maintained by the communities in which they [the apostles] are working.”
St. Patrick’s grandfather, Potitus for instance, was Catholic priest, from Banna Venta Berniae.
So, to say that it is LIBERAL ( as in moving the way of modern liberals who advocate abortion and gay marriage ) to allow priests to be married is redefining the word “liberal”.
If the Catholic church DID allow priests to marry, it would simply be moving BACK to the way things were during early church history.
RE: I’m saying that from what I see, and have experienced, and know the level of dedication it takes for a priest to do his job right, and a father of a wife and children to do his, it is virtually impossible to do both satisfactorily and consistently.
I question the term “virtually impossible”. Why is that?
That would indicate that the apostles and married bishops of ancient times and Orthodox priests and pastors of today are unable to do their jobs consistently.
In fact, an argument can be made that MODELLING a wholesome Christian marriage, including being able to raise your children in the fear of the Lord to your diocese or parish would be PART of doing the job.
That's the idea.
But it does have to do with Scripture whether you said it or not. The Scriptures metmom quotes indicates a contradiction in Catholic teaching and Biblical teaching. That's a hard one there to choose from. The choice to go with Gods Word seems logical to me. Any dissenters?
Right, every pro-abort, pro-gay marriage, pro-priestess of any faith or none invariably hates the discipline of celibacy and wants to get rid of it because they think it is a return to the early Church or something. Come on.
Look, the liberals are ALL for doing away with it. Every one of them—seriously, try to find one that isn’t. Only conservatives are divided on the issue. Why do you think that is?
FReegards
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.