Pope to hold summit on married priests
It may well be that the Pope is a saved man, but the Catholic Church is wrong on several levels, not the least of which is Celibacy for the Priesthood-- the practice of demanding celibacy within the Catholic priesthood is unbiblical. Leaders in the church ARE to be chaste men, but chaste within the confines of biblical marriage. It is this restriction that has most likely contributed to homosexuality within the ranks of the priesthood over the centuries, to say nothing of its current problem with pedophilia.
Priests should marry, or at least be given the option to marry. To become a priest they should in fact, by the biblical standard, be required to marry.
Did God say it?
Priests should marry, or at least be given the option to marry. To become a priest they should in fact, by the biblical standard, be required to marry.
Did God say it?
"It is not good that the man should be alone."
--Genesis 2:18
from the mind of... Eric | 4:49 AM
9 Comments:
Oh, come on. Paul, and many if not most of the earliest believers, try to persuade people NOT to marry! So, here's yet another issue where more than one idea is "blblical."
Better to marry than to burn. That's not a ringing endorsement of marriage.
Do you *ever* get out of the O.T.? :-)
"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." --1 Timothy 3:1-13
If that's not a ringing endorsement of marriage, and a requirement for office within the Church, I don't know anything at all.
1 corinthians 7:9 speaks of Lust-- "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."
This from the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary...
if they cannot contain — that is, "have not continency."
burn — with the secret flame of lust, which lays waste the whole inner man.
Paul DOES say that this-- that men and women should remain single/unmarried --is by permission and NOT commandment. He would rather everyone be single and unmarried, but this is only his personal ideal, not a command from the Holy Spirit. The reason we know this is not a command is 1 Timothy 3:1-13, ALSO written by Paul.
Oh! Yes, I do get out of the old testament, in fact all I needed to know about the unbiblical nature of Celibacy as a requirement for Priesthood came from the NEW Testament.
I don't think EL is saying "marry or burn," just that it's an unreasonable expectation that priests should be forced into celibacy.
What's the problem with marrying and having a wife and kids if indeed they are a true and faithful husband, and not a philanderer?
I agree that mandated celibacy it's unreasonable. I disagree that marriage is mandated for clergy. The Scripture most likely means "husband of one wife" as opposed to several wives.
And if "soul freedom" doesn't mean the freedom to marry, or not, then I don't know anything. :-)
it's their church, let 'em make whatever rules they want. you don't like it, you go elsewhere.
KEvron
I guess Martin Luther was out of line then, huh?
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some because they were made so by others; some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it. Matthew 19: 12
Was Jesus a pedophile? HE never married.
Let me add, or rather clarify, Estase's last comment...
The King James speaks of eunuchs in Matthew 19:12... Strictly speaking, incapable of sex. So some are born incapable, some are made incapable by others, some choose-- if not incapability --to make themselves unavailable for sex for the Kingdom of God's sake, but just as Paul stated his election of such in 1 Corinthians 7:7, even going so far as to say this is a desirable state for the believer, it is nonetheless a choice... Not a requirement. In fact, as I've previously pointed out, Paul had also listed requirements for those who would serve in the Church, who also felt Paul's choice was not for them.
The priesthood as well should maintain the vow of celibacy only as a choice-- not a commandment, as this goes against the Scriptures.
I'm not sure what Estase means by the pedophile comment, but perhaps it's to point out that such behavior is not necessarily the result of a vow of celibacy. Jesus, after all, was NO pedophile, but then there is no mention of Jesus ever vowing to remain unmarried. Jesus, for all He was fully man, was also God incarnate, and knew full well his mission. Call that a vow of celibacy if you wish, but Jesus had the luxury of knowing what awaited Him, and the face of His own Bride in due time.
The fact is celibacy is not for everyone; it is undeniably true that celibacy has been the cause of many an instance of sex-crimes commited against young boys by Catholic priests. I say 'undeniably' because there isn't a counter in the Catholic church to refute it, i.e.; there is no long tradition of men being allowed to marry within the Catholic Church. So what we're left with is a case of men closeted with men day after day, year after year... who's then to say this would not be enough to cause an otherwise normal/hetero man to turn to 'strange flesh' and end up committing an act of pedophilia on a young boy?
Post a Comment
<< Home