It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why are Catholic Priests unable to marry?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 08:38 AM
They are unable to marry because gay marriages have only been accepted in a few countries. They look forward to the day of Global acceptance.

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:35 AM
reply to post by the b rain

Hi, I'm not sure I understand what you mean - perhaps you could clarify for me please?

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:47 AM
reply to post by the b rain

Me as well, can't believe I missed that one.....?

Very interesting to say the least, I just wanna see where you can back it up.

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:53 AM
I mean that they bat for the other side. Incidently although the bible sanctions removal by means of excommunication, priests found in illicit acts are simply moved to a new parish. The whole Catholic System is rife with current and historical blasphemy. They are no different than the Sanhedrin and Sadducees of Christ day when he aptly named them Offspring of Vipers. It is a false religion that has nothing to do whatsoever with Christianity.

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:59 AM
reply to post by the b rain

An interesting point, but not one I fully understand - what does "batting for the other side" have to do with priests not being able to marry?
I know that homosexuality is not tolerated by the RCC, but I can't make the leap between that and priests not being allowed to marry.
I assume the OP was directed towards priests marrying women, not priests marrying men.

Am I just being a bit dense?

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:20 AM
I am poking a bit of fun at them marrying women because of the rampant homosexuality in the Catholic priesthood. The joke being that even if you gave them the opportunity to marry women the majority would reject it in favour of marrying only in the same sex.
As for the RCC not tolerating Homosexuality and pedophilia my comment was that they show a long and well documented history of not removing the offender from the church. That is contrary to bible scriptural admonishment practices.

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by the b rain

Fair enough - bit dodgy ground there though
not from me I hasten to add.

Yes, the practice of sending sex offenders, abusers and those who have broken their vow of celibacy to a different parich or diocese is one of the reasons I dislike the RCC hierarchy.

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by the b rain

Well, if they start excommunicating their priests it will draw attention to their religion and beliefs. They would rather pay someone under the table to make them go away instead of openly admitting there was a problem and resolving it. It also would bring up the fact that if it's happening so often in these days, what about the entire past of the RCC? How long has it been going on and how many children have been affected?

Basically, I think it's easier for them to move the priest around than it is to admit wrong doing and rectify it. In some people's eyes the RCC is above reproach and to admit a wrong doing would shake the very foundation of the church. Especially as often as it seems to be happening, or appearing, now.

But, homosexuality isn't just an issue with the RCC church and nearly all homosexuals I've known would be abhorred to hear that another homosexual did these things to children. I think a sick person who is willing to do something like this would probably molest a little girl or a boy, it wouldn't really matter.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by Stalks in Shadows]

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by Stalks in Shadows

why dont catholic priests marry?well no one has a gun to their head to make them become catholic priests---and apparently some one that set the rules came up with their celebate doctrine so thats what they do but this practice they have adopted is NOT sanctioned by the scriptures.

1timothy 4 says:the Spirit explicitly says that in the later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which G-D has created to be gratefully shared in by those that know the truth.

so if you understand the truth scripture says marriage is ok and eating food fit for human consumption is also ok.if the lemmings want to go on their march and drown themselves in the sea they are welcomed to it---i've no plans to follow them

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:17 PM
Okay, forgive me if I missed it, but I started reading and didn't see it.

Basically, one of the early-ish popes had a fear (and rightly so) that the church would become hereditary with titles handed down from father to son much like royalty.

Some individual orders, like the Franciscans had their own rationale prior to this wherein if you were sworn to love one above all others that you couldn't love all people equally.

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:17 PM
reply to post by yahn goodey

Hmm.. Your quote of the Bible verse seems to be talking about the "other" religions like Judaism who have the strict food laws. Just like the Christian hate of Homosexuals probably comes from the fact that Romans embraced homosexuality and were responsible for lots of Christian persecution.

In fact, a lot of the Bible seems to point fingers that can be traced back to things like this. I know this is just my take on things but you can't deny the coincidences...

Are Rabbi's allowed to marry? If not, that also makes sense once again.......

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:23 PM
The spiritual gift from God of celibacy is a rare and often misunderstood phnomenon.

Very few people are willing to give up their ego based worldview to serve God in any event, those who do may be blessed with various or no gifts, as God see's fit. of course a person seeking ways to serve God more closely will certainly manifest far more gifts than those who merely serve in a general , meaning less personal and committed in a sense..but gifts are meant to enhance the ability of the person to serve God more effectively and to become closer to God also.

The gift of celibacy is unique among the gifts as it is a gift that excludes rather than adds some dimension to life. By supressing, or eliminating through will or prayer or by a move of God the desire for sexual experience, one is supposedly strengthened and empowered to funnel those energies into actions that serve God and not the flesh. Denial of the flesh was a prime topic of Jesus talks and for good reason.

Those who strive to enter closer into the Kingdom must place all other desires behind that of knowing and loving God with all of one's heart, mind and soul and of course, loving their neighbor as themselves. Just doing those things will bring great rewards, both on earth and in the next realm, according to Jesus words. Other gifts may have equal or greater impact on the propagation of the gospel than the gift of celibacy, but it stands alone as a major devotional tool for many.

There are gifts of healing, and of wisdom, and goes on and on. Virtually any activity that advances the Kingdom of God can be called a ' gift ' if it is a sincere ability bestowed by God and acted upon by the willing servant. It is the empowerment, in a giving the keys to the mansion to the lowest trusted servant, knowing that they will only be used to represent the Masters best interests. Gifts will go away if abused or if God does not get the glory for them. many TV evangelists learned this the hard way.

In any event, there are legitimate gifts and there are also people who have not received a gift but believe they have, and those that want to help sincerely that mimic the efforts of others but still lack a discernable gift themselves that culminates in the gospel being preached and God being glorified. But the best examples are the most humble: Mother Teresa, gifted to assist the dying and destitute, the bottom of the human barrel. Only a gift from God could account for decade after decade of compassion and care for that one area, sacrificing all of life for others. THAT is a gift in action. They are easy to spot: God gets the credit and people see the attributes of God in his people.

Have a great day.

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:52 PM
reply to post by Stalks in Shadows

all scripture is inspired by G-D and profitable for teaching ,for reproof ,for correction,for training in righteousness,so that the man of G-D may be adequate,equipped for every good work.(2timothy3:16)when the apostle paul wrote these words there was no new testament bible as we have today

he was talking about the old covenant laws and testimony--that are not done away--breaking those laws is what constitutes sin--still 1john 3:4 sin is the breaking of the law.

romans 6:1are we to continue in sin that grace may increase?may it never be so!how shall we who died to sin still live in it ???????

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 02:15 PM

Originally posted by AshleyD
LOL! Yes I did.

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.

After all, you Protestants use Bible which was provided [maybe that is not correct verb but you know what I mean
] by Church, from 1054 called Eastern Orthodox Church.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by Vojvoda]

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 03:02 PM

Originally posted by yahn goodey
reply to post by Stalks in Shadows

all scripture is inspired by G-D and profitable for teaching ,for reproof ,for correction,for training in righteousness,so that the man of G-D may be adequate,equipped for every good work.(2timothy3:16)when the apostle paul wrote these words there was no new testament bible as we have today

he was talking about the old covenant laws and testimony--that are not done away--breaking those laws is what constitutes sin--still 1john 3:4 sin is the breaking of the law.

romans 6:1are we to continue in sin that grace may increase?may it never be so!how shall we who died to sin still live in it ???????

How do you know exactly what was written or not and when? Basically it's all conjecture and it was written by men, hundreds of years after Jesus' death. Also it's quite odd that the God that inspired the old testament was obviously different from the one who inspired the New testament or there wouldn't be a need for two different books.

Not being argumentative, just honestly want to know how you know first hand.

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Stalks in Shadows

Originally posted by yahn goodey
reply to post by Stalks in Shadows

it's quite odd that the God that inspired the old testament was obviously different from the one who inspired the New testament or there wouldn't be a need for two different books.

Not being argumentative, just honestly want to know how you know first hand.

john 1:1-11 He was in the begining with G-D.all things were made by Him.He was in the world and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him.He came unto His own but they did not receive Him.

this is saying that the G-D of the old covenant is the Messiah of the new covenant.

you asked how i know what i know?---its simple---i just keep on reading the scriptures over and over again trying to understand them and i pray for understanding

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:32 PM
reply to post by Vojvoda

again another misconception you raise about the Eastern orthodox church. first off the church wasnt created in 1054...that was the great schism...however when constantine moved himself and created a place for an emperor in constantinople thats when things began to seperate. however the doctrines and liturgy were already established. the differences between the church body in rome and that of greece were always understood however they remained under one unified body despite differences.

second of all, the protestants DO NOT use the same Bible as the Eastern Orthodox. they use the KJV and the NIV...both of which had books systematically taken out by martin luther. The Orthodox use the RSV for accurate english translation....the bible the Orthodox church uses is the same as the Catholics. the bible that the Protestants now use wasnt in existance in the way it is presented now in that doesnt even make sense.

im speaking from first hand experience by the a convert to orthodoxy...was raised protestant (lutheran to be exact)

Flyer Fan despite his unchained passion for the subject as some have suggested knows his history pretty well and can vouch for this as well.
Kind Regards,

[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]

[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Unlettered
First and foremost, Al Mahdi is not suppose to be the Muslim Messiah.

Which is why I specifically put the word Messiah in quotes- so it wouldn't be taken literally. Messiah is a Jewish word that other languages use for easy reference. Similar to a lot of French phrases like coupe d'etat. No, the Al Mahdi is not the "Messiah" (again in quotes) but he is the champion, redeemer, the one who is supposed to make all things right for Islam, etc.

...who would be a helping hand for Jesus against the Antichrist.

Finally someone who may have some information. What do you know about the Dajjal? What is he supposed to be like? I can't find much about him.

Secondly, he will not reign for seven years but more than eight years.

The reign of the Antichrist is under the same speculation as the reign of the Mahdi. If you ask most Christians, they will say the Bible literally mentions a seven year political reign. Some who may not know the entire prophecy consider it 3 1/2 years while others say it has already been fulfilled therefore it is zero years. But this comes from faulty interpretation. It is most definitely seven years with the last 3 1/2 being the most terrible.

It is the same with the Mahdi. Some believe 7, 8, 13, 14, etc. And some don't even consider the Hadith that mentions him as being inspired so they also provide zero. I've heard all differing numbers who all swear they are correct but the general consensus is seven years.

Thirdly, it will not be the Mahdi that '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' but Jesus will set up the Kingdom from Israel, as he said "I am the way the truth and the life".

Hon, you need to check into the Hadith. Again, not all Muslims even believe in the Mahdi just like not all Christians believe there will be a literal Antichrist. But if you go by the actual literal texts, yes. Al Mahdi will reclaim the earth to be under Islamic political and religious rule. Christians and Jews are mentioned specifically as being given a chance to convert or die.

And I'm sure you know I believe Jesus has nothing to do with it (being that I am a Christian) but that Islam hijacked the Christian prophecies and distorted them. So, no. I have no doubt in my mind that this will be a pseudo-Jesus. Jesus shares His throne with no one. I also have a sneaking suspicion the Dajjal will actually be a Christian figure with the truth who Islam claims to be the Antichrist. It's so twisted it's sick.

But this is way off topic and if this upsets the O.P. please let us know and I will take it to U2U.

[edit on 1/11/2008 by AshleyD]

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 01:13 AM
Original post 'Why are Catholic Priests unable to marry?

The Catholic Church means......Universal.
Part of the Apostles Creed reads.....
I believe in one God, Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and earth...............
In ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...

The teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church......1054 was the year that the East and West went their seperate ways.
Since this is not about the Great Schism of the Church, I will not go into that!
What does the Greek Orthodox(also includes Russian, Ethiopian,and many others) Church believe....
Following teh example of the Old Testament Church....High Priest,Priests, and Levites...........The Apostles also instituted in the New Testament Church........Bishops, Priests and Deacons, being the Priesthood in the New Testament Church.

A monk and nun cannot marry because they have chosen to follow God and strip themselves of their worldly habits!
They also have their name changed and live in monastaries of the same sex.
Mount Athos is a mans Monastery.........Women are not allowed.

A Priest should be a man worthy to take care of his flock in many respects....he must be a man of God and willing to do the work of God....what he does outside his home(Church or home.... this is to be Judged by God alone, as he too has his faults and is but a man)The position he takes is a great responsibility and must see to it that he takes this seriously.
A priest in the Orthodox Church can choose to be be married or not.
The clergy is divided into two groups....married(black priests) and unmarried (white) ......The unmarried is by nature the Monastic....Monks and nuns.
There are also priest monks......

To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons (Phil. 1:1).
In his first Letter to Timothy, the Holy Apostle also speaks of the qualifications of Bishops and Deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-13), as well as in his Letter to Titus (1.5-9).

Once a man has accepted his position as a priest and is not yet married, he cannot change his mind and get married later.....(as stated in Canon law)
A married priest has the same responsibilities as he does for his own family and those within the Church family....A priests wife has similar responsibilities, but to a lesser degree....speaking to women about women issues and so on....
A bishop must be unmarried!
This is so that his attention is focused to the whole church,the priesthood and all the people being members of.

hope that helps a little.


posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:55 AM
Generally a rather well known thing to Catholics the reasons that priests are not allowed to marry are both Biblical and political. While being born more out of the politics of the day, it was mainly because of the fear that the church property would be lost to the heirs of the priests. While at the same time there being good Biblical standards as written by Paul backing the decision to go that route to stem the growing problem. While now The Church could indeed change such a tradition with little trouble and concern for the loss of property, it for now remains locked inits traditions. Also it should be noted that the Catholic Church does in fact have married priests however they are all converts to the Catholic faith from Orthodox Church or the various Protestant denominations.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in