Yeah? So? That's really irrelevant. By that reasoning, everyone who is a believer should remain or become single.
Besides, Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and in Acts, some years later, Paul refers to Peter having a wife.
I Corinthians 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?
Besides, What's the big deal about priests remaining unmarried? God never demanded that of the Jewish priests who served in His temple. Jesus never taught it in Scripture. It doesn't make any sense that they'd be better priests if they remained single. There are plenty of successful ministers and missionaries who serve God who are married. It didn't interfere with their ability to minister.
My argument with it isn't that the Catholic Church doesn't have a right to decide that for themselves, but that they don't have any good reason for it because there's no Scriptural precedent for it and it's putting a burden on those men that they don't need to bear.
And the Lord’s
BROTHERS . . .
. . . there’s that pesky BROTHERS, again!
That BIBLICAL assertion, distinction, classification will simply not go away! HE HE.
. . . except in the minds of those with the ‘authority’ to erase God’s Words.
It’s alsmost like that verse was anticipating the RELIGIOUS hogwash of a certain edifice.
From Scripture alone, at best one can claim that it's inconclusive. The Corinthians verse need not be referring to a 'wife' but rather is equally well translated as 'sister'; i.e. a fellow sister in Christ. St. Paul DID exhort others to remain single as he was, provided that they could do so without falling into lust.
It is worth noting that the Catholic Church DOES allow married priests in the Eastern Rites, and even has allowed some married men to be ordained or (if validly ordained) to participate in priestly ministry in the Latin Rite, albeit as an exception, not the rule.
Jesus never taught it in Scripture.
Yes he did. Celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom - even though its scope does actually reach beyond priesthood. St. Paul echoed that teaching only two chapters earlier than your quote in I Cor. 7.
There are plenty of successful ministers and missionaries who serve God who are married. It didn't interfere with their ability to minister.
Nonsense. It hinders where they can go, what they can do, and how much they can risk in where they go as missionaries. Go read the stories of the Jesuit martyrs in North America (Sts. Jean de Brebeuf, Isaac Jogues, and companions) - I would be shocked if many married missionaries would be willing to take the risks that they did and that ultimately lead to their martyrdom - in fact, doing so would be a negligence toward wife and children. As St. Paul teaches in I Cor. 7, the unmarried are free to pursue the things of God without restriction, while the married must be about the business of their spouse and children.
Even if there were no Scriptural precedent (which I contend that there actually is), the practical fact that a married priest is forced to split his loyalties between his flock and his family would be sufficient to have such a discipline. No man is forced to become a priest - so there is no issue of "putting a burden on those men that they don't need to bear."
Celibacy provides a genuine freedom to be about the things of God, and God offers the Grace necessary to live the celibate life. The seminarian is given due time to discern the celibate state and is given formation in seminary to help him live that life well - I know that, because that is the life that I am living, and if God wills me to be a priest, a celibate life will be in my future.