[FourtySeven]

Celibacy can't be defended. Christ did not require it. It has no basis in early Christianity. Indeed for the first 1,000 years of Christianity celibacy was not a requirement to be a priest.How in the world can a celibate man give advise to a married couple. This is so ridiculous it is just frustrating to see the church so uncompromising on this issue.Is it any wonder why the churches are closing and are empty.It is ruled by celibate bureaucrats who have no life experience and are very immature men.

I've never understood this line of reasoning some critics of the Church use against the Priesthood. Are you saying that celibacy wasn't around at all for the first 1000 years of Christianity?

Of course you aren't. But then you make a leap, when you say, "Celibacy is, of course, something someone should do before they are married, but that doesn't mean it's ok to NEVER get married!"

That is, in effect, what you are saying. You are saying that if a man or woman chooses to simply not get married, but yet lives a chaste life, that's somehow wrong, despite the other Scriptures posted on this thread that show St. Paul clearly praising those who choose a celibate life.

Now, at this point, you may say, "I never said it's wrong for someone to simply live a chaste life, but it's wrong for PREISTS to do it". That's really the only response I can see anyone making. But really, that response makes no sense either.

[Courdeleon02]

You are putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying that if someone wants to be celibate that that is wrong. I'm saying that celibacy should be optional for the priesthood. In fact I will go as far to say that to require it to enter the priesthood is immoral because you are excluding a vast amount of highly qualified individuals who would be better than the current crop of gay boys.