When is the Catholic Church Going to Allow Priests To Marry?

very thought provoking. I think I'll...ah...not say anything and keep thinking for a while. Thanks

Amelia, if I left everytime I got in a arguement with someone that no matter what prrof you give them they don't change I would have left years ago. Gun grabbers, chrsitians, republicans, you can't change their mind, their mind is made up. Guns are bad, I'm right now I am burning your house down for being satan, Bush is god. You can't change them, but maybe someone who's mind has not been made will read and learn.

Originally posted by Croat56
Plus priests are supposed to lead a life of poverty. If they were to start a family how would they support it? Theres now way they could afford college from the collection plates.

Come on thats reason enuf for this dumb arguement to end. If you want priests to mary then be protestant or whatever. Dont force your beliefs on Catholics.

[edit on 10-2-2005 by JDIAH]

Originally posted by Plumbo

Well, now Somewhere, hold on a sec. Paul aint that bad. Heck, if the RCC really followed his teachings, then why so many inconsistenies...

He was that bad. This is a man from whom the basic tenets of Christianity were established.

Acts. 5:7 Purge out the old leaven.

6:2 the saints shall judge the world.

7:1 It is good for a man not to touch a woman

7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and the widows, it is good for them even if they abide as I.
(I take those as no less an order to kill the human race.)

7:9…It is better to marry than to burn.

7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband.

7:36 But if any man…need so require (of his wife)…Nevertheless he that standest steadfast in his heart, in his necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
(Really now, marriage and sex is that evil? Did God say this somewhere that only this fool was privy to?)

And my personal favourites;

11:3 but I would have you know, that at the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man…

Did I miss this in the preachings of either God or Jesus?

This fool, went off on his own preaching without benefit of discipleship, and fell out of grace with Peter. This same fool who supposedly was in Rome and died at or around the same time as Peter was not the one to whose followers the Romans requested his doctrine be written, that would be Peter, as done by Mark.

This fool it is written, was being sent to Rome on trial, escaped via shipwreck, and supposedly while under guard after making it to Rome, still managed to preach "no man forbidding him" from in "his own hired house."

Now I ask you, were the Romans so stupid that a fugitive would be allowed this under their noses? Where did he get the funds to upkeep his house? This very same man who wrote to Philemon besieging him to forgive the slave, the now Bishop Onesimus for stealing from him, who is now ordained under Paul’s tutelage, while offering to pay it back in full, came up with these funds where exactly?

Of all the testimonies in the OT, I have the least respect for this Paul.

A huckster and a fraud, and the most quoted and celebrated person in all of Christianity, the master of their domain, the man from whom the early church fathers forged Christianity. In other words, he usurped even the teachings of Jesus.


[edit on 2/10/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by James the Lesser
...chrsitians...you can't change their mind, their mind is made up. You can't change them...

That's not true and nothing you say will make me believe otherwise!

(Insert the book of Acts here)

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Did I miss this in the preachings of either God or Jesus?

Paul was a man of the Spirit on a mission. He spoke of many things he saw as distractions. This was one of them. He had the "well, if you HAVE to get married, then I suppose it's okay" attitude because of his intense focus on God. This mirrors what Jesus was saying in the gospels where you are not to love your spouse, parent, relatives more than God. Are you saying both Jesus and he are wrong? He acknowledges people are different in this statment but also asserts his feelings here.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
This fool, went off on his own preaching without benefit of discipleship, and fell out of grace with Peter.

Not about this issue. It was about where to preach or rather, who to preach to. There's a full story in this. Also, nowhere does it show where he 'falls out of grace' with God by any apostle.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
A huckster and a fraud,

No he's not. What did he 'huck' and defraud?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
and the most quoted and celebrated person in all of Christianity,

Um... actually Jesus is.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
the master of their domain, the man from whom the early church fathers forged Christianity. In other words, he usurped even the teachings of Jesus.

How? I don't see anything presented thus far that shows any usurpation.


[edit on 11-2-2005 by saint4God]

People come up with many different excuses not to follow Christ. Even go to great lengths, searching the scriptures to find errors, inconsistencies, contradictions. But when you scrape off all the s_hit that's disguising their true self. You see anger, bitterness, hatred. You see displaced blame onto others, you see a massive father void, you see a wounded heart. One day, Somewhere will have to come to terms with her theological scapegoating tactics and bow her knee and confess with her mouth. I hope for her sake it's not too late.

Plumbo

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? -Paul

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Plumbo]

The point of this discussion is about priests marrying - I repeat again, seems nobody knows how to respond to these points:

1) Buddhist monks don't marry , so Zabilgy is wrong in implying its only catholics;
2) Pedophilia and homosexuality can not be resolved by making a priest marry a woman

Mignarious......first of all I am SICK OF BEING MISQUOTED IN THIS THREAD! Regarding your #2...I didn't say pedophelia and homosexuality can be resolved by allowing priests to marry. I said because priests can't marry, it attracts perverts, pedophiles and homosexuals to the priesthood. If priest could marry, this problem would be massively decreased as in IT WON"T ATTRACT SO MANY PERVERTS, PEDOPHILES AND HOMOSEXUALS! I don't even think a homosexual priest is bad as long as he abides by his vows.

And regarding #1...we were talking about Christians....

You asked Sour Grapes, who by the way has made some excellent and valid points here if her first language was english. Why the need to insult her? Did you decide to turn your venom on her when I left yesterday? You seem to be very angry and should probably see someone about it.

So what if we believe Jesus was married. I DON'T CARE IF YOU BELIEVE IT and I'm not going to try and sell the idea to you. I have my faith and my beliefs and you have yours..........

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Zabilgy]

First of all, don't call me sonny and don't tell me to change my tone. What am I one of your children? Secondly in all that gibberish you wrote, where does it say that the church they created was called the CATHOLIC CHURCH? It was a Christian church yes, but where does the word Catholic show up? WHERE??

ATHEIXT......you said I didn't respond to you post, I just made the statement in my first sentence. Well read again, I told you off because you were acting inappropriate and then I continue by giving you a response to what you said. So what are you talking about?? You call me childish? You get pissy because I told you off.....wah wah wah. If I made you cry, I'm sorry!

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Zabilgy]

Amelia, it's ironic that you're complaining about people ignoring my posts while are are the fist member to have ignored mine... But it's not so bad, I can easily live with in. By the way, if you really are a girl, live in the same city as I do and you're just as hot as your avatar, then I think it should be verrryyy interesting to have a caht together!

Ok so my post was ignored into all this mess, then I'll have to post my thoughts again...

The reasoning behind that principle of Jesus not having married is quite simple: "Jesus did not married a women only because he married the Church", just as all Christian priests must do, at least according to the Catholic church. On a sociological level, it is to negate marriage with an individual for marrying an INSTITUTION, or God, more specifically. The priest has to be devoted to his church and to its believers sut as a man is devoted to his wife, or a women to her husband, for nuns. It's all symbolic... Christanity is full of deep symbolism anyway. And no, there is no proof or even the slightest evidence of Jesus having married in the entire New Testament

It also goes with the principle of renouncing to your condition as human, and especially renouncing to physical love (since marriage understates a sexual fusion between two partners). So it's not so nonsense than it looks...

The only thing I still don't understand is the inequity between mens and womens in the Church... why would'nt nuns be authorised to be in charge of a church or congregation and do the masses??? I guess here that's the real problem with Catholicism, and Christianity overall.

Originally posted by Zabilgy


You asked Sour Grapes, who by the way has made some excellent and valid points here if her first language was english. Why the need to insult her? Did you decide to turn your venom on her when I left yesterday? You seem to be very angry and should probably see someone about it.

So what if we believe Jesus was married. I DON'T CARE IF YOU BELIEVE IT and I'm not going to try and sell the idea to you. I have my faith and my beliefs and you have yours..........

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Zabilgy]

Zabilgy,

Thanks for your concern. It's nice when others see the 'personal' attacks against a member, when the poster has nothing of merit to add. (I went back to read over my posts, and I apologize if any of it is hard to understand. Sometimes I ramble, but I didn't think my English was so bad. )

I also believe that it's a great possibility that Jesus was married. I'm not 100% sure, only because I'm waiting for someone to show me proof that he was not. (I'm open-minded and not afraid to change my views if given new information.) I don't feel that I push any of my ideas or opinions onto others. I only ask they respect those of us who do take the time to research and learn, and not throw personal stones simply because they may not agree with something we've posted.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by SourGrapes]

The reasoning behind that principle of Jesus not having married is quite simple: "Jesus did not married a women only because he married the Church", just as all Christian priests must do, at least according to the Catholic church.

Echtelion.....re-read this post and tell me how it makes sense. Jesus married what church? There was no Catholic Church while he was alive. He was a Jew.

In my humble opinion, the Catholic Church is afraid of letting their preists marry because it is my belief that they will marry each other. With all of the recent news about Clergy (not all) but some, that have really screwed up young boys when they were in the church. I feel that the church has spent millions quietly keeping some of them(preists) out of the press and at the same time, carring very little about their victims. I would hope to think that if they were allowed to marry it would be one of the opposite sex.

Echtelion.....re-read this post and tell me how it makes sense. Jesus married what church? There was no Catholic Church while he was alive. He was a Jew.

There you go...

He married the Church (and yes, the CHRISTIAN CHURCH) when he was crucified. Of course the Christian church did not exist before he got crucified, only his chosen apostles were the disciples, the first priests that would become the first foundations of the church. As the crucifixion is the ultimate sacrifice that he made to save humanity and to seal his unity with the Father, through resurrection of life, the crucifixion is the starting point of the church itself, assuming that Christianity preaches the alliance between Man and God through the blood of Christ. His further predication, the one he did with the apostles after his resurrection only confirms the alliance and responsibility for all apostles to go spread his message all over the world through the church.
The concept of marrying the church can be found at many places through all the New Testament (especially in the Apostles and Revelation).

If you still don't understand that concept, then you need to think a little bit more in 3 dimensions. In language, the notion of marriage is not only something that concerns two or many physical persons, but can also be between theorical objects.

If I say, as an example, that I have married the "cause of the Revolution", that means that I will dedicate the rest of my life serving this cause and possibly place this devotion above the devotion to a women.

From Section 1579 of the Cathechism of The Catholic Church:

All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from amoung men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."

I have put the first quote there to point out that this is the criteria and that it is chosen, accepted and vowed to by those who wish to follow the calling to the sacrament of Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. No one is forced to take these vows and in fact, some are unsuitable for these committments, either way. it is a free choice. Moving on (same paragraph):

Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord," they give themselves entirely to God and to men.

I think the key words to understanding this concept are "with undivided heart" and "give themselves entirely". I personally do not see how under these conditions one could expect that the committments of the sacrament of marriage would not conflict. In fact all Holy Orders are considered a marriage already, to God, Christ, The Church, instead of to another human being.

These things are not agreed about or interpreted the same by all denominations, it is what the Catholic believes. No man or woman is forced to agree (free will), but if you accept the Catholic Church, this is one of the things that comes with it.

What I don't understand is people who are not Catholic or do not understand the Catholic Church arguing against it, as they have no obligation to accept it. They are not in a position to decide if this (or other practices of this Church are right or wrong for the Church) is something the Church should abondon. Are there some who fail in these choices? Of course. Does that make the practice wrong simply because not all men/women are up to the challenge? Of course not. But as this is forced on no one, reject it and choose a church where the practice is not embraced.

The concept of giving oneself completely to God is a difficult one, but it has major beneficial implications for the Church and the world that perhaps can be best understood by reading the writings of many who have chosen this path, and there are plenty available who have explained this path to a deeper relationship to God by accepting celibacy and a committment to their vows in doing what they feel they have been called to do to further the work of God. At the very least, you may find it interesting to understand from the personal perspective of a real person who choses union through the Sacrament of Holy Orders over the Sacrament of Marriage. As is often the case though, many spend enormous amounts of time reading one perspective, while totally ignoring what I think would be undeniable curiosity in a search for the truth.

So, my two points in case anyone has missed them are this:

1. The Catholic Church and it's teachings are not being forced on anyone, so what is the big deal if they choose whatever precepts they follow.

2. There is just as much information out there explaining the truths (as seen by the Church) as there is attacking it.

I really don't see embracing one side without investigating the other as denying ignorance, but unfortunately I do see a lot more weight of that in many of the arguments on the religious discussion threads.

He married the Church (and yes, the CHRISTIAN CHURCH) when he was crucified.

So he married the church when he was killed? What about when he was alive?

Originally posted by Zabilgy


ATHEIXT......you said I didn't respond to you post, I just made the statement in my first sentence. Well read again, I told you off because you were acting inappropriate and then I continue by giving you a response to what you said. So what are you talking about?? You call me childish? You get pissy because I told you off.....wah wah wah. If I made you cry, I'm sorry!

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Zabilgy]

I said that you didn't give any arguments, and your first sentence was the one with the 'Firstly, don't call me sonny...'. What I considered your STATEMENT was your entire post (or at least the rest of it).
Frankly, YOU was and are still the one who is acting inappropriate by dismissing all I write as 'gibberish' and sentences like this:
'If I made you cry, I'm sorry! ' - If you were hoping to make me cry, I must disappoint you - the only reaction I can make is laughing at what you write.
You think I get pissy? Read my posts again. Do I show any anger? No, I don't - because forum is not a place to show it, I think. And I will ask because of curiousity - why did you quote your post, not mine?

[edit on 12-2-2005 by AtheiX]

[edit on 12-2-2005 by AtheiX]

First scripture
1Timothy 3:2 says that a Bishop should be married only once and 2 verses lated it says he should be able to rule over his own children well.
1Corinthians 9:5 defends pauls right to marry.

Now history
1. There were 39 married Bishops of Rome (early popes).
2. Celibacy was not mandated, even at the Council of Nicaea in 325
3. Celibacy arose out of monastic movements and there were early local bans and a ban on sex before the Eucharist.
4. A complete ban on marriage by priests didn't arise until the Second Lateran Counci in Romel in 1139.
5. About 5% of Catholics affiliated with the Rome fall under the 20 Eastern rites wherein a man can be ordained a priest even if he is married, but can not marry once ordained.
6. The priests named in #5 can not be married in America, as of 1929. This is because priests live on church property and a problem arose over wives inheriting property.
7. Convert priests from Episcopal or Lutheran churches are allowed to remain married and have been since 1982. There are about 100 of these in America.

welcomingvocations.org...

Atheixt.....I quoted my own post for you so you could re-read it.

Vagabond. That's some excellent information most of which I wasn't aware of. I appreciate it!!