Posted on 06/22/2014 2:42:07 PM PDT by NYer
Or rather they have nothing better to do.
Ya, that's funny...What's even funnier is that God says clergy are to have a wife...Obviously so they know how to deal with married couples...But who cares what God says, eh???
Yep, especially the one “they” just called in. Oh well! We know the truth.
And that would be a true statement...All Hawking can discuss is the 'theory' of black holes...Just as a never been married man can only discuss his 'theory' of marriage...
:)
And.....???
The point is that celibacy is a Biblicaly-based DISCIPLINE, and not a DOGMA.
It is subject to change, and not a requirement.
You will find married priests in the Roman Catholic Church, specifically from 2 sources. The first is that eastern churches permit married priests, but not married bishops. Additionally, former Episcopal/Anglican priests who have converted to Catholicism have been allowed to be re-ordained.
Yes, the door is open.
Sorry to take the wind out of your sails.
And that's another area where you religion fails...
Paul was not speaking to potential clergy...It was a proclamation to anyone who may be called to celibacy...To let them know that God calls some people (and obviously few) to that vocation...
Buy unlike the Catholic religion, these people would know that God called them to celibacy...
In the Catholic religion, one can go thru 3-4 years of philosophy education and then a few years of seminary before he has to make up his mind whether he can go with the rigors of celibacy...
After all those years in prep work to become a priest, it's likely one who questions his ability to become celibate is not going to throw away all that invested time but will go into the priesthood regardless of his celibacy convictions...
And, because of the anti-marriage position of your religion, it's an automatic magnet for sodomites...
It's not about the nature of love. It's about making a marriage work.
Experience is the issue.
It's easy to have all the answers until you've been there.
And what chapter and verse would that be found?
You are aware that celibacy is Bible-based, right?
Celibacy is neither dogmatic, nor universal. There are some (few) married priest, and it is possible that the discipline of celibacy may be changed.
So, quit parroting Oral Roberts or Jimmy Swaggart and do a little more research.
Mr R did not so much as elude to sex. YOU were the one who brought it up.
I doubt HE'S the one who has sex too much on his mind. I see quite a bit of projection going on in your post.
It's that mote and beam thing.
1 Timothy 3:1-5 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?
I don’t ever go to the priest to fix my spouse, I go to the priest to fix myself. I have a good marriage. But all relationships require work. I think a priest can be a good objective listener. If I am living a good interior life, then my spouse benefits from that.
But the Church has made it a requirement.
A priest cannot marry.
So if it's really subject to change, then why is bringing up the issue such a sore spot for so many Catholics.
Shouldn’t you wait for me to discuss scripture before you post your “I don’t think” picture?
Or is it such a reflex that you cannot help yourself, like the Pope criticizing free markets?
Accepted by whom? Seriously, anyone that doesn't like the rules can start their own church, and many have. Whining about what any group does that you're not a member is kind of a waste of breath.
“All men, including priests, and all women, including nuns and sisters, know they are sinners.
What’s your point?”
What is yours? Do Catholics, half of them, have perfect spouses who are free from sin?
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. 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.”
Really? Someone who is not married is superior in discussing marriage to a married counselor? And that superiority is based on the celibate man’s supposed knowledge of how to give himself to God (who, unlike our spouses, is perfect)?
Please re-read what I wrote. It is not a sore spot for Catholics. It is only sore when non-Catholic busybodies start making ridiculous claims, and waste time with foolish, ignorant arguments.
It is a bit akin to playing chess with a pigeon. The non-Catholic busybody struts around the board, soils it, then declares victory.
So, yeah, I get a little sore about these matters.
“The non-Catholic busybody struts around the board, soils it, then declares victory.”
The argument made by the writer is that by giving himself to God, the priest learns more about giving to someone else than a married man. And while I haven’t quoted scripture, metmom has: “Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife...”
While that verse does not necessarily REQUIRE an overseer to be married, it certainly rejects the idea that one CANNOT be married. In this case, the soiling pigeons are in agreement with the Creator, while the chess-playing Catholics post pictures of boxes of cereal - a rather unique approach to the game of chess!
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.