Evidence for God from Science

Is there a reason that catholic priest do not get married and have children? Do you consider the pope sinless?

Someone missed a letter in the translation and instead of celebrate, they read celebate. Maybe it's like with the nuns-they marry the church?

They claim that Peter was the 1st pope but he was married.

Oops missed the question on whether the pope is sinless. Definately not. Many popes in the past were horrible. The one around when Luther popped up was stealing from all of Europe basically-getting indulgences for St. Peter's and taking some for his pockets-and he's a better example.

I think it's because Jesus said that it is better for a man to remain celibate, and the Catholics expect the priests to be the very embodyment of Christ's teachings.

The simple answer is this -- the RCC won't let them become priests unless they refrain from marriage. Ergo, they don't get married so that they will be allowed to become priests. They ignore the fact that no earthly entity has the right to deny someone the right to lead a congregation on the basis of marital status.

The only Biblical requirement concerning marriage and church leadership is that the man can only have one wife, and must keep his household in order. As already mentioned, many apostles -- even Peter himself -- were married, and no right-minded Christian would challenge their right and ability to lead the church.

Also, you must realize that many priests consider not getting married a sacrifice. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Not having a spouse to love and please -- not a sacrifice. Not having children to raise in addition to your other duties -- not a sacrifice. Heading a household is one of the most sacrificial things a man can do -- to give it up can hardly be considered a sacrifice. This is just one of the "sacrifices" espoused by the RCC that aren't really sacrifices at all upon closer examination.

Also, Paul mentioned in one of the epistles that it is better for a man to marry than to burn in lust. Recently-uncovered events in the RCC would show you the horrible consequences of running from your sexuality, rather than dealing with it in a healthy manner. It seems that many priests became priests with the misguided notion that doing so would somehow make their sexual desires go away -- it didn't work, and they ended up expressing their desires in harmful, unchristian ways.

This is only one of many unbiblical doctrines adopted by the Catholic church over the past 1700 years -- a practice warned against in the book of Revelations. There is no reason why a church leader shouldn't be married, and in fact they very well should be if God hasn't given them the particular calling to be single, and the spiritual gifts to cope with a perpetual single lifestyle.

That's the 1st thing that God ordained;.....marriage. It puts a bad taste in my mouth that people recognize the pope as the holy father.

LittleShepherd wrote:Also, Paul mentioned in one of the epistles that it is better for a man to marry than to burn in lust.

Hey can you dig up the verses on that? That's a new one for me.

Welcome to the forums btw, LS - I hope you can find the time to stick around for a while.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/r ... e0545.html
Explaining the Celibate Priesthood.

The pope is most definitly NOT sinless(I do beleive Pope John Paul II went to confession once a week, or somewhere along that line. Why would he go he would have no reason to go if he had nothing to confess), however, he (The Pope) is infallible if speaking 'excathedra'(three things must be necassary for this to happen, I'll explain further if anyone is interested) which has only happened...2-3 times, I can't remeber the exact number of times...my sister is much better at remebering those sort of things. And, yeah, there were many 'bad' popes, which was one of the main reasons for so many ppl leaving the Catholic Church during the reformation. Simply shows that man is not infallible when electing a new pope, and I ask for your prayers in the election of a new Pope.

A-ha! I found it! I apologize for taking so long -- I was having trouble finding the verse and had to leave for my morning workout.

The verse in question is I Corinthians 7:9 -- "But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion."

Another passage earlier in the same chapter also states that it is good for men to marry, and for a husband and wife to have sex. Verses 1-5 read:

"Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control."

Paul is basically stating that marriage is a good way to deal with your sexual desires so that you don't end up acting on them in an in appropriate manner.

Then verses 6-11 deal with Paul's view on being single, and also with lust:

"I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) --and that the husband should not divorce his wife."

Note the first part "I say this by way of concession, not of command." It's very important -- Paul's giving his view, and his wish, that everyone had the same spiritual gifts that allow him to remain single while accomplishing God's work. But it's only a concession -- he goes on to say that his gifts are his own, and God has given different people different gifts. As much as he wishes everyone had that gift, he concedes that not everyone does. And then goes on to say that if you have that gift, take advantage of it. If not, and you are "aflame with passion," you should go ahead and get married. And then, of course, that once married -- that's it. You're married, and should not separate or commit adultery.

Note: I am very happy to have found this passage. I was looking all over for it last night and this morning, and couldn't find it. I had to use Bible.com, and...well, since the word lust isn't mentioned specifically, I ended up looking for the word "better." And it worked! Yay.

Note 2: The passage that lists the criteria to use when electing church leaders is in I Timothy.

I Timothy 3: 1-7 deal with the office of bishop -- basically the equivalent of the modern priest or pastor. It doesn't say that such a person shouldn't marry -- as I said before, it only mentions that he should have only one wife and that his household should be in order.

I Timothy 3: 8 - 13 then deals with the lower office of deacons(basically pastor's assistants who free him up to do his main jobs of preaching and teaching). It has criteria for both the deacon and his wife. And again -- a deacon is allowed to have a wife. Nothing prohibits it. Verse 11 even seems to suggest that women can serve as deacons -- it comes with a limitation, but that's elsewhere in the Bible and it's not a big thing anyway(just they can't be in authority over men in the church, including teaching positions).

But yeah -- as you can see, the idea that church leaders should be unmarried is unbiblical. Also, it deprives the leader, and the church, of the lessons that one can only learn by heading a household. If you can't keep your household in order, how can you run a church? if you don't have a household, how can you keep it in order? And conversely, how are others supposed to be able to evaluate your ability to run a church if they can't observe the way you run your household?

Ack! I just realized that the last paragraph makes me sound like all church leaders should be married. I didn't intend that.

Nothing mandates that church leaders have to be married, as nothing mandates that they shouldn't be married. That's a personal thing, and has more to do with the person's spiritual gifts. It is simply not something that should be mandated(required) by the church.

The last paragraph was just one of my own problems with unmarried church leaders. I know they are allowed, and even encouraged if they possess the proper spiritual gifts. I was simply pointing out something that makes discerning their ability to lead a church more difficult -- not impossible. If you cannot view a man's household(one of the greatest, most telling testaments a man can have), you just have to look at the other criteria for church leadership that much more carefully.

Alanna:

I know you're well-intentioned, but all that reading the information that you linked to does for me is make me even more resolute in my belief that requiring church leaders be unmarried is a very bad thing. And that the move to such celibacy was...quite insidious.

Clement of Alexandria states that a man shall be saved by begetting children, which goes against the Bible's claim that salvation is by faith in Christ alone.

Epiphanius of Salamis encouraged men to leave their wives if they wanted to serve the church. A man leaving his wife goes against everything the Bible says about marriage. Anything that encourages a man to leave his wife is pure, unadulterated evil.

The "Doctrine on the Sacrament of Orders" is simply wrong in its decree that "although celibacy was not a divine law, the Church had the authority to impose celibacy as a discipline." Because no -- no, it doesn't. It also disregards exactly what "the church" is, relegating it to a mere organization, rather than the living organism that it is supposed to be.

Jesus' statement in Matthew that "Some men are incapable of sexual activity from birth; some have been deliberately made so; and some there are who have freely renounced sex for the sake of God's reign" quoted in that article had nothing to do with church leadership. It applied to anyone -- clergy or otherwise -- and was a statement regarding either being physically incapable, or of making a personal decision based on the spiritual gifts you were given.

Then there's the 3 "important dimensions" of celibacy.

1. Freedom -- It states that a man who is unmarried is more free to follow the call of God. While it might look sound at first glance, what this statement is really doing is limiting God Himself. Does God not account for every event that happens? Does your being married somehow mean that God can no longer use you in the same way? Of course not! A basic Biblical truth is that if God calls you to something, and you follow Him in faith, then He will make it happen regardless of your circumstances. Money, marital status, social status, education level, etc. -- what may seem like an obstacle at first glance is really no obstacle at all to God. If God is resolved to do something, nothing can stand in His way.

2. Sacrifice -- I'd like to know what someone is really sacrificing? While marriage and children have their joys, they also have immense hardships, sacrifices of their own, and great opportunities for spiritual growth. Also, how a man handles his household is a great way to determine his fitness for church leadership. Without a household, it makes things that much more difficult on the people doing the evaluating.

3. Grace of God -- There's no argument here. The ability to live a single, celibate lifestyle is by the grace of God alone. But remember -- not everyone is given the same gifts. One may be given the gift of celibacy, but no the gift of leadership. Conversely, one may be given the gift of leadership, but not the gift of celibacy.

Required celibacy has two negative consequences:

1 -- It limits people on the positions they can be called to. A man might be called into ministry, but is married, and by RCC rules he is unable to pursue that calling because he's not single.

2 -- It leads to people declaring celibacy who haven't been given the gift in order to appease an organization that has no right to make such demands in the first place. We've seen quite a few cases of this -- trying to be celibate without the proper gifts is disasterous.

LittleShepherd wrote:Note: I am very happy to have found this passage. I was looking all over for it last night and this morning, and couldn't find it. I had to use Bible.com, and...well, since the word lust isn't mentioned specifically, I ended up looking for the word "better." And it worked! Yay.

Thanks LS, that was very interesting. I know the feeling, trying to find some passage with bible.com... And you know it's using another word, yet you remember only the point of the passage with your own word. Nice work though; thanks again.

Celibate Priests is a tradition of the Catholic Church, not a doctrine.

That is merely semantics. The fact remains that the organization that is the RCC claims to be "the church," and does not allow church leaders to be married, with no Biblical basis for doing so.

When tradition goes against what the Bible actually says, it must be evaluated in such a light and thrown out. It is all well and good for a church leader to decide to be celibate, if he has the proper gifts, but it is downright wrong for the church organization to insist that he do so in order to hold a leadership position.

No person or organization has the right to infringe on our Christ-given freedoms, including the freedom to head a household and a congregation at the same time, however well-intentioned they are. When it stops becoming voluntary(the type of celibacy Christ spoke of), and starts becoming mandatory(you simply cannot be a leader without being celibate), it contradicts the Bible.

No person should be denied the right to be a leader within the church as long as they live up to the Biblical guidelines. And no person should be forced to either follow some extra rules set up by people without the authority to do so, or give up their right to lead a church, as long as they fulfill the criteria that actually exist.

Christianity is a religion full of freedom. While a few things are morally wrong, and should not be engaged in, there is a lot that is dependent on the person in question, and the way the Holy Spirit is working in their life. One person goes into a bar, is not convicted by the HS, and it is not a sin. Another person has the conviction of the HS concerning that activity, and does it anyway, and it is a sin. It's not the activity that's the problem -- it's that they disobeyed the HS(who is one with God, and who is God).

Simply put, people do not have the right to dictate to others what behavior is wrong if the Bible does not speak out clearly about it(or something similar enough that it can be applied to the situation). And no person or organization, especially one claiming to be Christian, has the right to place extraneous restrictions on people, no matter how well-intentioned.'

Required celibacy for leadership positions is a tradition, or doctrine, or whatever word you choose to apply to it that simply has no place within Christianity.

Voluntary celibacy is another thing, but such celibacy has nothing to do with church leadership requirements, and should never even be considered when evaluating a person for a church leadership position.

Is the person sexually pure? -- valid criteria
Is the person single and intending to remain so? -- invalid criteria

Matthew 10:37-39

The RCC requires priests to be celibate because it's a sign of full devotion to Christ and no other person.

By the way, you don't need to be celibate to be important to Christ, the RCC simply requires it of priests (who's main function is to give the Eucharist and the other sacraments). You can lead people to Jesus without being a priest. You can do His work without being a priest, priests just have specialized functions in Christ's plan.

By the way, there is talk that the next Pope is going to relax the celibacy of the clergy. It's a tradition of the church to have celibate priests, it can change. Doctrine on the other hand can't change because it's rooted in the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles.