Why are Catholic Priests unable to marry?

Originally posted by Stalks in Shadows
Yes, Vojvoda, I agree with your views about Nepotism and Wealth and no I don't lump Christianity into just Catholicism because I'm from a place where there are NO Catholic churches. Mostly the old fire and brimstone Baptists, Pentecostals, and now these satan inspired "Charismatic Churches." I simply was addressing the RCC because it's big in the news/talks right now.

Ok. We understand each other. If you have something to ask, freely do it .

Originally posted by Stalks in Shadows
Thanks for the reply Ashley!

I was waiting for someone with some Biblical knowledge to enlighten me on some of it. So if Paul saw this coming then he's basically bashing Catholicism way before it ever really came about? He foresaw the madness that the Catholic church would bring upon Christianity...

No. I explained it to you already - nepotism. Btw, it’s not Catholic Church it’s Roman Catholic Church.

Originally posted by Stalks in Shadows
Is the Anti-Christ going to be the Pope? He's a world-leader (in some ways) and proclaims to be a the top of the hierarchy on the pathway to God... Basically second to only God.. This current Pope seems to be all about making himself look good and grandiose to the world while he shoves horrible things under the blanket.. Looks like the making of some Mob leader or something?

Sorry for disappointing you, but no, Antichrist won’t be the Pope.

Originally posted by Stalks in Shadows
Too many people start to idolize their pastor, preacher, what have you and start to miss the real message he's trying to bring. That's why I say I'm not religious but spiritual because I can look past all this worldly crap created by men. It never ceases to amaze me that pastors can preach out of a church and profit off of people's tithes because we all know where the money goes, into their pockets and the church they run.

Jesus walked around from place to place preaching, lead a life of physical misery and pain, and did without all of the world's comfort to bring a message to the world. But people's heads are shoved so far up their @$$ they can't even see that the person they trust to teach them the word is wrong from the get-go. If a pastor wants my respect, he needs to get out of that physical church (a church could technically be anywhere he holds service), get out and preach to the world, and depend on the love of God to see him through, not a bunch of people paying him a salary.

I guess from your writing you don’t know almost nothing about Orthodox Church .

Originally posted by AshleyD
Not to bash Catholics because I know many of them love God just as much as I do but, yes, much of their dogma is not mentioned in the Bible but was later created by man. Unfortunately, due to the corrupt medieval Catholic church, common people were not allowed to own Bibles so they could not correct many false doctrines.

Celibate is not even a dogma.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Our Antichrist and their Al Mahdi (basically, the Muslim "Messiah") will both be in power for seven years, head a one world government, head a one world economy, force all to convert to a single religion while all those who refuse will be killed, be accompanied by a religious leader who backs up everything they do, can only appear after world wide war and turmoil, etc. It is pretty eerie how much they have in common with one another. It is even scarier because the president of Iran already admitted he is personally paving the way for the Al Mahdi's appearance.

Correction – Antichrist won’t rule 7 years. He’ll rule 3.5 years.

Originally posted by The time lord
The Bible tells that giving into marriage is some type of sin or is seperate from God. But then again, is man meant to stop of all a sudden and why is then God pleased that Issac and Ishmael have many decendents because of Abrahmam and yet be proud of it?

Sorry, but marriage is one of the 7 Sacred Mysteries. Jesus Christ blessed marriage and his first miracle was performed in marriage ceremony!

Originally posted by FlyersFan
That's wrong. Common people would have been allowed to own bibles, but the problem is that they couldn't read.

Hon, this simply is not true. It is no secret many were not allowed to own Bibles and it was a punishment of either imprisonment or death if caught with one or distributing them. Look it up. It is absolutely true.

WRONG. The Catholic church refers to the priest as Father, but the bible does NOT command that no one call their priest 'Father'. The quote is 'call no man father'. MAN. This is said and yet all the while those who wrote the N.T. refer to each other as father and son. And most people on this planet refer to their father as father.

Matthew 23:9. "And do not call anyone here on earth 'Father' for you have one Father and He is in Heaven."

I'm not knocking them for doing this because I don't think it is a salvation issue. Others have tried to explain this verse with other passages to make the title acceptable. Whatever the deal is, it's none of my business and I'm really not interested in debating why or why not. I think you and I are both Christians who love Jesus so it's just not an issue with me to argue about it with a fellow believer.

It didn't. If you actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church before you criticized it, then you'd understand that fact.

I don't think someone has to be a Catholic to know they pray to saints and to Mary. And I believe I explicitly stated I was not criticizing Catholics. Although I disagree with much of their doctrine, I still believe we are a family in Christ so I ignore the differences. Again, it's none of my business how they worship God even if I disagree with it.

And that is all I'm going to say regarding Catholicism. I don't agree with a lot of it and you even admit to a lot of the doctrine being added by man. I can't go with this but I'm not going to knock those who do. Period.

Originally posted by Vojvoda
Celibate is not even a dogma.

I completely agree. But why are priests and nuns forbidden to marry?

Correction – Antichrist won’t rule 7 years. He’ll rule 3.5 years.

This is something I'm not touching. Some swear it is seven years, some swear it is 3.5. My opinion is that he is on the world scene for seven years but only during the last 3 1/2 will he have all encompassing power. To me, this is like the debate whether or not Saul actually saw the spirit of Samuel or a demonic spirit. It has been debated so much it's one of those things that will never be solved until the end of time. I think the whole tribulation lasts seven years while the second half (referred to by Jesus as the Great Tribulation) will last 3 1/2. Is this correct? Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Matthew 23:9. "And do not call anyone here on earth 'Father' for you have one Father and He is in Heaven."

I'm not knocking them for doing this because I don't think it is a salvation issue. Others have tried to explain this verse with other passages to make the title acceptable. Whatever the deal is, it's none of my business and I'm really not interested in debating why or why not. I think you and I are both Christians who love Jesus so it's just not an issue with me to argue about it with a fellow believer.

Ok, I guess you already concluded I'm Orthodox. So, this is how we look at this:

How should we address a priest — "master," "mister," "comrade"? In fact it is easy. Christians are one family in which all of us are related to each other. Relatives do not have to observe ceremonies. "Brother" and "sister" are the best forms of address to laymen. We are all the children of one God and the descendents of Adam and Eve. "Father" is the title for all the clergy who perform the mysteries through which people are born to the spiritual life. Usually after the word father a name is added, for example: "Father Peter." A deacon can be address with "Father deacon" and the Father Superior (of a monastery) can be called "Father Superior."
We should not call our priests "holy father" like in catholic countries. Whether a person is holy or not becomes clear after his or her death. The wives of the clergy as well as old women should be addressed with a kind word "matushka" (mother).

We should address archpriests: bishops, archbishops and metropolitans with the word "Your Eminence" as they are endowed with church power.

Sometimes we need to send a written message to a priest. A priest should be addressed with "Your Reverence," bishops and archpriests — "Your Grace," archbishops and metropolitans — "Your Eminence."

Sects that do not have priests rebuke the Orthodox believers for allegedly violating the words of Christ: "And do not call anyone on earth your "father," for you have one Father, and he is in heaven" (Mathew 23:9). But it is clear that the word "call" means "worship" in this context, otherwise the words of the Lord can be turned into nonsense. As far back as in the 1st century John the Theologian addressing Christians in his letters, referred to them as "children." The response was obviously the respective one. The matter here is not as much in the word as in the internal attitude to it. Deacon Andrew Kuraiyev wrote well about it:

"Even the most convinced Baptist calls his parent "father" and does not mind hearing his own son call him "dad." This case is similar to that of an icon: we revere and worship only one God. But we should and must respect those through whom we received the gift of life.

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by Vojvoda
Celibate is not even a dogma.

I completely agree. But why are priests and nuns forbidden to marry?

For nuns [like monks] is ok and should be like that. Read my explanation for priests: nepotism.

This is something I'm not touching. Some swear it is seven years, some swear it is 3.5. My opinion is that he is on the world scene for seven years but only during the last 3 1/2 will he have all encompassing power.

That is correct. First 3 1/2 he'll fight for world power, and later 3 1/2 he'll rule.


[edit on 9-1-2008 by Vojvoda]

[edit on 9-1-2008 by Vojvoda]

Originally posted by Vojvoda
Ok, I guess you already concluded I'm Orthodox.

LOL! Yes I did.

So, this is how we look at this...

Yes, I'm aware of how this is circumvented.

"Even the most convinced Baptist calls his parent "father" and does not mind hearing his own son call him "dad."

Er... looking at the context of Matthew 23, the entire chapter is referring to church leaders and teachers. Nobody else. Not family members. The entire context is talking about the hypocritical pharisees and how much they loved their titles (Rabbi, Father, Teacher, etc.). It has nothing to do with calling your father Father but with church leaders Father.

Again, I am not remotely concerned with this. If others do it, it's not my place to judge. I've never quite figured out why Christians spend so much time arguing with each other over small issues. My view is usually, "Are you saved? Do you love Jesus and beleive He died for you? Great! See you in Heaven." I very, very rarely debate Christians until they spout of something completely obscene like the notion that Satan and Jesus are co-Messiahs. Other than something like that, I leave them alone.

Originally posted by Stalks in Shadows
label me so quickly...

Your anti-Catholic post was transparent. You got yourself labeled.

you're the only one spouting off at the mouth about it.

I posted information that directly contradicted your rhetoric and emotionally charged langauge ... but, according to your failed logic, your own posts were 'serious' and mine are just 'spouting off' eh? oh that's funny.

This is a thread that was started to get serious input, not someone to come in and try to wrap it all up in one post.

No. This thread was obviously started by someone who already formed a warped opinion on the matter and just wanted a bunch of 'yes men' to respond in kind.

You 'asked a single question'. The answer is able to be given in a single response and it indeed can be 'wrapped up' in that one response. It all goes back to St. Paul. Period.

We are talking about a serious problem with religious dogma that's causing real damage.

How disingenuous. - posting a 'question' that was really nothing more than your anti-catholic bigotry in (very thin) disguise. By this statement it is clear that you aleady formed your own erroneous answer - that celebacy is a 'serious problem' and that its' 'causing real damage'.

The truth is - celebacy is NOT a 'serious problem' and it is NOT 'causing real damage'. You posted absolutely no scientific evidence to even remotely suggest such a thing. Oh .. and since you admit that the bible was written by men, and that it has lost a lot in translation, then there can not be any problem with the religious dogma or the interpretation because if the book that is being used is corrupted then IT DOESN"T MATTER what the interpretation is.

Oh .. and here's a clue ... refraining from sexual activities doesn't cause someone to become a gay pedophiliac. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

I had a question

Again - that's just disingenuous. You did NOT have a question. From your statement above you admit that you already formed your opinion (based on error) - 'a serious problem - causing real damage'. :shk: If you really had a question you would have welcomed the answer - it was given.

was looking for some worthy input,

I gave perfect input. You just don't like it because it doesn't mesh with your anti-Catholic views.

to start an intelligent conversation with people with manners. Something you obviously know nothing about.

blah blah blah.

What you wanted was to trash the Catholic teaching and the Catholic tradition .. and have a bunch of people chime in that they agreed. If you really wanted an INTELLIGENT conversation then you would have welcomed the answer to your 'question'

And as far as manners goes - that's a crock. Your posts were full of loaded langauge insulting the Catholic faith and tradition, and yet when someone gave strong answers .. you whine like a freak'n toddler.

Originally posted by AshleyD
It is no secret many were not allowed to own Bibles ...

They were not allowed to own the heretical bibles. However, the REAL bibles were available to anyone who could read. The universities had them.

Matthew 23:9. "And do not call anyone here on earth 'Father' for you have one Father and He is in Heaven."

Exactly. You said that calling a pastor 'father' was forbidden. It is not. And even with this quote in Matthew, there were people in the New Testament that called each other son and father. People on earth everywhere call their fathers 'father'. This is a non issue.

it's none of my business how they worship God even if I disagree with it.

Some refreshing maturity in this forum. Very nice.

The problem is when people disagree with something .. and yet they don't know anything about it. They just spout what they have heard, and they dont' bother to go to the source and read.

The number of anti-Catholics here who blather on and on .. and yet who have never even cracked open the Catholic Catechism to read for themselves ... that is exasperating as well as disgusting.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Exactly. You said that calling a pastor 'father' was forbidden. It is not. And even with this quote in Matthew, there were people in the New Testament that called each other son and father. People on earth everywhere call their fathers 'father'. This is a non issue.

This is what I said to Vig:

"Looking at the context of Matthew 23, the entire chapter is referring to church leaders and teachers. Nobody else. Not family members. The entire context is talking about the hypocritical pharisees and how much they loved their titles (Rabbi, Father, Teacher, etc.). It has nothing to do with calling your father Father but with church leaders Father."

We both agree it is a title some use to refer to their church leaders. Although I do think Jesus is saying don't call church leaders Father, it's a non issue with me for those who do. I typically call church leaders Pastor and that's it. As for those who do, it's just not any of my business! LOL! In the context, Jesus was referring to a matter of the Pharisee's prideful hearts. They used their titles to affirm their honor. I don't think modern priests do this.

I still don't like it but like I also told Vig, "My view is usually, 'Are you saved? Do you love Jesus and believe He died for you? Great! See you in Heaven.'" It's not my place to judge other Christians even if I have an opinion on the matter. We are all His children and part of the same family.

Priests cannot marry because the Church, Catholic that is, does not want divided loyalties, thats all. A man who is under the influence and spell of a woman will choose her over the Pope or any of his scemes, and old Papa will not have anyone less than fully loyal to him.

Of course, being denied natural affection is bound to cause problems and many of the priests turned to those around them leat able to resist: The younger boys of the order..sometimes girls as well.Very few people are gifted with the ability to deal with celibacy, and as a result the ones who are not equipped for leaving all sex behind them in devotion to God end up in trouble..IF they get caught.

It is an unnatural arangement and one that very few are prepared to deal with sucessfully. The entire set up of the catholic church..all the trappings and wealth, ostentatious ceremony and secrecy to the max on the inside, is a phony mess anyway. Good people are catholics, don't get me wrong..but the church claiming to have exclusive rights to God is a sham and a lie. Weak people want someone to tell them all is well if they obey such and such rules..and they thrive in that sort of place. Not for me.

Originally posted by The time lord
The Bible mentions the 144,000 who are pure for God when he calls them up, but I guess they will be living and not brought back to life from the grave.

Actually, that's 144,000 righteous Jewish people. The dead in Christ and living believers after the tribulation don't count there...they still do go to heaven though.

Originally posted by The time lord
The Bible tells that giving into marriage is some type of sin or is seperate from God. But then again, is man meant to stop of all a sudden and why is then God pleased that Issac and Ishmael have many decendents because of Abrahmam and yet be proud of it?

No it does not. Marriage is a Godly institution and represents man being whole through Christ first and marriage second. Marriage makes the two as one flesh.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by joesomebody]

You won't find the answer to your question in the bible or in politics. A few people were on the ball; it was all economics. Until the 13th century, priests could marry. It was one group of monks who did not allow marriage for the simple reason that once they passed away, everything they owned returned to the congregation. Over time, this amounted to a lot of money.

The catholic church of the time liked the idea and adapted it for the same reason. In most countries, contrary to popular belief, the Catholic church was quite unpopular (it's only in recent times, 18th to 20th century that people were actual believers, before that, the Catholic church was in many countries, but as a tradition rather than a belief: once the Roman Empire fell, you couldn't say "I'm Roman" or "I'm not Roman", so politically and militarily, you were Catholic or Muslim). Where the church was unpopular, they could use whatever money they could get. And in the Vatican, it increased the church's power and influence.

Things like being married to the church or being celibate like Jesus were added on at a later time to justify celibacy to the public.

In response to the OP, I have to say a couple of things.

I don't agree that priests should be celibate - there are some very pious priests who are able to control their urges, but there are many more who are not.
Have a read about the borgia's and also check this list;

# Saint Peter, traditionally the first Pope, was married, known to have taken his wife along on his apostolic/mission journeys (1 Cor. 9:5).
# Pope St. Hormisdas (514–523) was married and widowed before ordination. He was the father of Pope Silverius. [1]
# Pope Adrian II (867–872) was married, before taking orders, and had a daughter.
# Pope Sergius III (904–911) was supposedly the father of Pope John XI by Marozia (Source: Liber Pontificalis, Liutprand of Cremona).
# Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest (Source: Patrologia Latina).[2]
# Pope Clement IV (1265–1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had several children.
# Pope Pius II (1458–1464) had several illegitimate children.[citation needed]
# Pope Innocent VIII (1484–1492) had several illegitimate children.
# Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had a notably long affair with Vannozza dei Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his famous illegitimate children Cesare and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Rumors of Alexander's sexual activity were even more wild — see Banquet of Chestnuts. He fathered a total of seven children.
# Pope Julius II (1503–1513) had three illegitimate daughters.
# Pope Clement VII (1523–1534) was probably the father of Alessandro de' Medici, whom he made Duke of Florence.
# Pope Paul III (1534–1549) held off ordination in order to continue his promiscuous lifestyle, fathering four illegitimate children by his mistress. His nickname was "Cardinal Petticoat" because his sister Giulia had been Alexander VI's mistress. He made his illegitimate son Pier Luigi Farnese the first Duke of Parma.
# Pope Pius IV (1559–1565) had several illegitimate children.
# Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy orders

from here

Can you see the pattern of hypocrisy?

There are probably many more that have been covered up - something the RCC hierarchy excels at.

Also, if I may give you a small piece of advice.
RCC hierarchy supporters will interpret ANY contentious issue as an attack, and will try and troll/derail/bully you off a thread if they interpret the thread as being critical of the RCC in ANY WAY.

I've already seen several attempts at this in this thread, and it stinks - cyber bullies are even more cowardly than bullies in the real world.

If, however, you write a thread that is openly critical of protestants, muslims or just about any other christian sect or religion, they will gleefully jump in and disparage those who believe differently than they do.

Apparently, it's OK to critisize anything and anyone except the papists.

You've already seen one reference to me in this thread - this is quite typical, to try and attack a members integrity on many fronts in a bid to force them not to post - but I won't be bullied, and they don't like that.

Just so you know,I was born and raised in the RCC and when I speak, I speak from experience, not dogma or theory.

Have a nice day

Click here for more information.

reply to post by FlyersFan


FF - you brought my name up in a disparaging way in a thread I had no intention of participating in until your unwarranted attck, I responded, not in kind but in a way that disputes what you and your collective spout as "the truth"
When will you learn that youe perspective is not the only one?
As for a thinly disguised attack on you - it was not, but the comments were directed at your ilk - you as an individual are simple not important enough to me.

Again, your response is quite typical - need I remind you AGAIN that you are not the arbiter of this site?

OP - just so you know, FF has your thread tagged as "another anti catholic thread" - you see to her, anything that does not fit with her narrow view is an attack.

I saw the thread title and looked at it as an honest question based on a desire for knowledge - apparently others do not, and never will, unless you write threads full of glowing praise for a corrupt and outmoded hierarchy.



[edit on 10/1/2008 by budski]

Originally posted by Stalks in Shadows

Originally posted by Mainer

They are 'married' to the Church.

Not really, they are married to the Word would be a better interpretation.

Actually, they are married to God (for the sake of serving the world) would be an even better interpretation. Basically, they forego a human relationship to strive for a closer relationship with God. It's not for everyone, so those who do not have the committment/calling are encouraged instead to marry, they can serve the Church in other ways.

Originally posted by Stalks in Shadows
I think celibacy is setting them up for failure, everyone knows how much sexual frustration can upset your whole life. Some people even commit suicide over such things.. Imagine being tempted your entire life by this... It's not like Priests are Jesus himself, no one has the restraint he had and to say that they could be just like him cheapens what Jesus is.

No one is forcing them to take a vow of celibacy. they do not HAVE to be priests if they are going to have a problem with this aspect of it.

While we're at it, I always wonder, why does this question always arise with no mention of the fact that nuns are also celibate? Should they be marrying too? They are both taking the same vow, making the same committment to God. Now why should the nuns be expected to devote themselves more fully to God than the priests?

reply to post by Relentless



great post.

I think the question of nuns does not arise because they are more in the background - priests are more to the forefront.
It also has something to do with, IMO, the abuse issue - I have never heard of sexual abuse allegations being levelled against a nun.

In irish RCC schools, the nuns were as guilty as the christian brothers of physical abuse - but not sexual abuse. But yes, it's strange that people never mention the nuns.

Perhaps the reasons cited are the cause?

Originally posted by budski
you brought my name up in a disparaging way

You poor thing. No I didn't. This is in no way 'disparaging'. It is, however, comical.

Wow. One of these threads and budski didn't start it.

That's twice in two days I've been shocked in this forum.

a thread I had no intention of participating in

Now why don't I believe that? hmmmm Perhaps because when it comes to anti-catholicism it seems you just can't help yourself. Almost OCD.

When will you learn that youe perspective is not the only one?

OMG that's funny. Comming from a guy who screams 'troll' and 'off topic' every time anyone posts something that disputes your post, or shows your post to be bunk. So ... right back atchya.

your response is quite typical -

right back atchya - again.

OP - just so you know, FF has your thread tagged as "another anti catholic thread"

budski, budski, budski. The guy isn't blind. EVERYONE can see what is tagged on the thread. (and it fits)

anything that does not fit with her narrow view is an attack.

right back atchya - again.

I saw the thread title and looked at it as an honest question based on a desire for knowledge

Then you didn't bother to read the thread at all. The OP posted that disingenuous title, and then proceeded to make other comments that clearly showed that he/she didn't want an answer to the 'question' but instead already formed negative opinions and just wanted to spout and get the same style responses.

Guess you missed that, eh?

Originally posted by budski
Perhaps the reasons cited are the cause?

If you are trying to say that celibacy causes pedophilia, the answer AGAIN is NO. It doesn't work that way. Celibacy doesn't cause homosexuality and it doesn't cause pedophilia. That's basic psychology.

If you are trying to say something else ... then nevermind the above statement.

reply to post by FlyersFan


FF I wasn't saying that celibacy causes sexual abuse - I was merely pointing out the difference between commonly held (and wrong IMO) perceptions about nuns and priests and the fact that people don't refer to nuns because they are more usually in the background.
It would be silly to say that celibacy CAUSES abuse - however in some cases it may be a mitigating factor. I don't believe this but other people do, so I thought it worth a mention.

I do however think that physical abuse issues in schools run by christian brothers have a correlation to celibacy - it's just not as easy for us boys (biologically speaking) to control our urges and this can be acted out in many forms, the most common of which is physical abuse in RCC run schools in Ireland - I can't speak for other countries, because I have no experience of them.

As I've said before, the RCC in Ireland has many issues which need resolving, one of which is that family members (in large families) are not always "called to god"
Sometimes they are just dumped into a life of celibacy by parents of large families who still follow the old tradition of sending one or more of their children into seminary's - these are more usually christian brothers (don't like the word monks, and they are different in any case) rather than priests and nuns.
As you can imagine, having a "vocation" forced upon you can cause any number of problems.

I'm not sure if this happens as well in other european RCC countries - but I do know the practice is dying out in Ireland.

Your perception of the OP is obviously different to mine - I did not see anything overtly critical in the OP, I saw a question which may have been badly put, but honest all the same.

I mean, really - can you not try and control your paranoia or at least put it on hold for a while?



Maybe some meds would help?

I've come to enjoy the little formalities of a bit of back and forth, but perhaps we could dispense with them in future?
We're never going to see eye to eye on many issues of RCC, but that doesn't mean we can't make it fun, and that we can't be civil.

BTW the reason I mention trolling/derailing so much is because your debating tactics fall into that category, whether intentional or not.
See here

And please remember - it's nothing personal - at least not from my end.

[edit on 10/1/2008 by budski]