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

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

Always glad to be of service, unless of course it's a really icky job, then I hide until somebody else does it.

Also, about the whole Jesus being married thing.

Jesus was prophesied to be a Nazerene, although that prophecy is not actually in the Old Testament. There is some doubt as to rather or not Nazareth even existed in Jesus time however- I have heard that it is not on Roman maps of that period. This has given rise to speculation that he was actually prophesied to be a Nazarite- a sect of Judaism which Samson belonged to. Nazerites did not marry. Obviously this explanation is not attractive to Christians because it implies that the new testament was altered after the founding of Nazareth to create a false fulfillment of misunderstood prophecy. It should be mentioned, in the interest of fairness towards Christians, that just because we haven't found a map including Nazareth from back then doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Also, although there would be no shame or sin in Jesus getting married and even begetting children, there is not much solid evidence that it ever happened. Jesus was often accussed of associating with drunkards and gluttons, and I have heard (although I admit I have no idea of the source's credibility) that in the cultural context of Jews in that time, such a charge implied a general lifestyle which included being unmarried, which was seen as shameful, perhaps because it might imply promiscuity. In other words, it has been argued by some that the insults leveled at Jesus by enemies in the bible show that he was indeed a bachelor.

Ok, here's the deal:
1) Jesus wasn't married.
2) Some priests ARE married. If married priests from other denominations convert to Catholicism, and are ordained as Catholic priests, it can happen. It's rare, though I happen to know such a priest. And his grandson is in my grade.
3) Why aren't priests/nuns allowed to marry? Because the church believes marriage is so dang important, the priesthood shouldn't get in the way of it. And God is so dang important, your wife shouldn't get in the way of it. Both God and marriage are so very important, a person's attention shouldn't be divided between the two.

Hope this helps! (Hey, being Catholic and going to a Catholic school for three years isn't in all in vain! ^_~)

Originally posted by Chi
Ok, here's the deal:
1) Jesus wasn't married.

Not to be a pain in the butt, but how you be so sure? There is evidence on both sides, all of it inconclusive. If you know something I haven't heard before I'm open to that, but I think its good to keep at least a very thin shred of doubt for things which have not been resolved by proof yet.

Why aren't priests/nuns allowed to marry? Because the church believes marriage is so dang important, the priesthood shouldn't get in the way of it. And God is so dang important, your wife shouldn't get in the way of it. Both God and marriage are so very important, a person's attention shouldn't be divided between the two.

That is one very common explanation, and a valid one. That being said, the property rights of a widow are the reason that priests of the Eastern rites lost their ability to marry in 1929.

Hope this helps! (Hey, being Catholic and going to a Catholic school for three years isn't in all in vain! ^_~)

I've never actually been to a religious school, but it always sounded like a longer more boring form of bootcamp which unlike other boot camps does not yield the right to kill people and have many promiscuous relationships. So shed light on the mystery for me, what is religous education really like? (Better than public education I'd imagine, but what else?)

Originally posted by saint4GodPaul 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...

Still picking and choosing arguments you think you command. Fine, I expect nothing more and will address your comment about Paul based on how you no doubt as do Christians in general, live within or is it without? their Christian teachings of today and get you back to that which I raised.

But first, Jesus did not require abstinence in marriage, neither did he require men cut their hair to pray, neither did he revoke circumcision, neither did he require women to be subservient to men. Jesus did not claim that man to this day or his is born with original sin. Those are all Paul’s teachings, everyone of them imposed by Christianity, and those are but a few of the wayward teachings. You should note that the quotations you offer by Jesus fail to make your case, as they do not support Paul either; Eph. 5 & 6, and maybe you should pick up that book of Acts yourself and read it and try and understand it with an open mind, for as you will see later you have not understood chapter 15 at all.

If you are you married, you by implication, do not care for the things that belong to God, but only for worldly things and are an hypocrite defending an entire doctrine while ignoring those which you do not live by. And likewise with:

If you are male, married and having sex, you have no power over your own will and are distracted from God.

If you are male and married, do you demand your wife’s obedience? If not, why not?

If you are female and married, are you obedient to your husband? Do you abide by Paul’s ruling, if not, why not?

If you were a Christian and engage(d) in sex before marriage, you have disobeyed and sinned. Why did you?

But of course the great out is that you just say you are sorry and all is forgiven. You should not be preaching a dogma which you neither fully subscribe to, nor completely understand, to wit:

As positively as Paul’s servant tried to put the spin on the rift between the apostles for those who read the words but do not comprehend the message, the rift is blatant, and unless you had taken the time to read up on the debates raging from this time on, from well documented extra NT epistles, you would understand this spin. You may have been perceptive enough to understand that a goodly number of the NT epistles came into being well into the 2nd century as new issues were raised.

Paul was baptized by Ananias and took off preaching his own ideology. When at Antioch he encountered opposition to his teachings obviously because they were not in agreement with John’s who was also there. John left and went back to Jerusalem, most likely to report this doctrinal split. Paul obviously decided too to indoctrinate the gentiles and the uncircumcised of his own accord and for this was called back to Jerusalem. Now you may think that Peter was in agreement from 15:7…, but that would not be the case, as it tells you immediately there was much dispute. At the end of this council, the rifts grew larger, Barnabas and John Mark split from him as well. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other… It is henceforth that the rest of the story and 13 epistles is all about Paul. Peter is never heard from again, this man who under Jesus was supposed to have been given the church. Acts could not have been written prior to 70AD, and for 40 years of dedication Peter is afforded less than 15 chapters, where not his final arrest, trial or circumstance of his final days are spoken of. It is by plain deception that we find out of character references within the gospels that Christians use to justify their teachings, and it is these that are rife with redaction and forgery. Represented by the missing Mark 16:9:20 in earlier Bibles, specifically verse 15.

Peter’s views were not in line with Paul’s this is very evident by his sermons where:

Addressing the Jews 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of earth be blessed.

5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a saviour, for to give repentance to Israel…

I trust then you can understand the connotation attached to Abraham.

Even the quixotic and slovenly spawn of a Freud and Keirkegaard coupling, suffering impotence from lack of aplomb, attests unknowingly to the grand rift between the disciples and the bereft Paul, for unfortunately had he too bothered to research the Christian faith, he would find that being of Paul, Peter and Apollos, was in reference to the opposing teachings of the three, and the call of a man possessed of self-importance trying to rally the troops behind him.

Clement: Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel? Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties. Yet that making of parties brought less sin upon you; for ye were partisans of Apostles that were highly reputed, and of a man approved in their sight.

And just for fun, I leave you with this to digest:

Clement to Theodore :
Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly…
As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries… To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. (They mean lie right?) For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men."

How trite wouldn’t you say, to hold from the public all there was to know about your Jesus? What else have they hidden, that he was indeed a rebel, one of Josephus’ characters who held no compunction to kill his own? Oh the apoplexy about to set in.

To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after ,"And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem," and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise," the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:

"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan." After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him," and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them."

No you would never, ever be lied to or mislead. Not possible, no way, no how, right? Of course neither of you are at all curious as to the history of this faith, you would rather believe it just was as of day X in 33CE.

Maybe when they realize that the fact a man is married doesnt effect whats in his heart. I think personally in those who sexually abuse those subject to the church would have not been as likely to end up commiting the sins they do if they where married.

One more thing.
Zabilgy - some priests are married (which is immoral) - this is true - but does that mean that the Church should allow that? Some priests do other immoral things, for example Priests Henry Jankowski and Tadeusz Rydzyk from Poland:
Jankowski:
- collects a lot of money
- which he spends later on limousines
- and expensive clothes
- used the possibility to do sermons to do political sermons
Rydzyk
- collects a lot of money
- and has his own helicopter
- and I also heard he's even got his private airfield
Should the Church allow that as well? No.

Originally posted by AtheiX
One more thing.
Zabilgy - some priests are married (which is immoral) - this is true - but does that mean that the Church should allow that?

I don't mean this as a rhetorical question so don't get defensive, I'm curious. What makes marriage immoral? It seems to me that for some of God's servants, setting the example of a godly relationship would be a part of their ministry. Furthermore, a minister who does not observe self-denial in various forms would be far easier to identify with for some.
A priest who has had a few girlfriends in the past and who is married, who listens to non-offensive secular music, etc would be far more likely to "reach" me than one who devotes his life to self-denial.

Some marvelous stuff posted on here since I've been away. Thank you everyone!!

Zabilgy - some priests are married (which is immoral)

Atheix...who says its immoral? You? It doesn't say so in the Bible. And if some can marry under certain circumstances, my point is, why not just let them all marry and lead normal lives. Mortals have sexual desires and needs. And it's okay both morally and in the eyes of God.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Zabilgy]

Zabilgy - some priests are married (which is immoral) - this is true - but does that mean that the Church should allow that?

?? Yes, the church should allow all priests to marry. They are mortal men. And it would probably keep the pedophiles from becoming priests to hide from their true selves and/or give them am outlet for thier disgusting behavior. Allowing prists to marry would attract more NORMAL people to the priesthood!! The Pope could change this...but he is a useless joke!

Originally posted by Zabilgy

Allowing prists to marry would attract more NORMAL people to the priesthood!! The Pope could change this...but he is a useless joke!

Get over it Zabilgy, this thread has been dead for like 3 weeks and now you are just trying to re-instigate interest by being inflamatory. Your remarks don't even deserve response.

quote: Originally posted by Zabilgy

Allowing prists to marry would attract more NORMAL people to the priesthood!! The Pope could change this...but he is a useless joke!

Get over it Zabilgy, this thread has been dead for like 3 weeks and now you are just trying to re-instigate interest by being inflamatory. Your remarks don't even deserve response.

Relentless....if my remarks don't deserve response, then why are you responding to them? This thread is far from dead and neither is this topic. If you don't like this thread Relentless, then move on to something else. What is forcing you to even spend more time here? You are obviously still interested in it or you wouldn't have bothered to respond even though you say my remarks "don't deserve response." You are a walking contradicition.

Bottom line: move on to another topic if you don't like this one. You've had nothing useful to add to this thread....so why are you still here?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I don't mean this as a rhetorical question so don't get defensive, I'm curious. What makes marriage immoral?

Nothing. In fact if you are a Christian, it was an institution formed by God in Genesis when the two fleshes become one.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
It seems to me that for some of God's servants, setting the example of a godly relationship would be a part of their ministry.

I think it would help others who are married, yes.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Furthermore, a minister who does not observe self-denial in various forms would be far easier to identify with for some.

You can either 1.) control your thoughts or 2.) have your thoughts control you. I'd say a minister should be going with option 1.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
A priest who has had a few girlfriends in the past and who is married, who listens to non-offensive secular music, etc would be far more likely to "reach" me than one who devotes his life to self-denial.

I think there's something to be said in reaching out. I think there's also somthing to be said about being a great role model and people coming to you. Which is right? God knows. I believe some are called for one path with God and others who are directed to participate in another path with God (there are Biblical instances to support this idea).

haven't we already had this discussion before? If not, you already know what I'm going to say. If you were truly interested in the answers, I would be glad to provide what has already been written and said or offer an opinion on what hasn't being written/said but will need them in direct question form as I am a terrible mind reader.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.

I guess bum s** will have to do for now

Originally posted by Zabilgy


Relentless....if my remarks don't deserve response, then why are you responding to them?

I am not responding to your remarks

This thread is far from dead and neither is this topic.

It's been talked to death and accomplished little.

If you don't like this thread Relentless, then move on to something else. What is forcing you to even spend more time here?

It popped up since it's on my subscribed list and I thought there might be a fresh thought. I was wrong.

You are a walking contradicition.

Why thank you, but really I'm not, I was just making a point.

Bottom line: move on to another topic if you don't like this one. You've had nothing useful to add to this thread....so why are you still here?

Actually, that's what I was trying to say to you.

Originally posted by Zabilgy

Relentless....if my remarks don't deserve response, then why are you responding to them?

Originally posted by Relentless

I am not responding to your remarks

You respond to my remarks and say your not responding to my remarks? Twice now! Yah...okay Relentless. Time to call the shrink maybe?

I was responding to you, not your remarks.

Shall I explain this further?

I was responding to you, not your remarks.

Shall I explain this further?

That's okay Relentless...you seem to be having a tough time. I don't want to be any additional pressure on you.

- a sect of Judaism which Samson belonged to. Nazerites did not marry.

as I recall they made these vows for a specified time, 7 years comes to mind.
not sure . TMYTMB