[quote="achristiantoo, post:10, topic:237280"]
thank you Irish Polock for the scripture refererence
As for priests getting married,
it would appear celebacy is being taught by ...as you said..."Christ and St. Paul"
However let's look at verse ....
1Cor 7:25 .....
It is clear this is NOT a commandment from Jesus but rather an opinion given by Paul.
I agree it may be advantageous for a priest not to be married so he can focus totally on his priestly duties within the church. However I fail to see a law which prevents priests from marrying.
As for 1Cor 7:1 Men are encouraged not to be immoral and touch a woman as a prostitute
made referenced to in the previous chapter 1Cor 6:16-17
1Cor 7:2-3 goes on to say
In 1Tim 4:3-4 Paul even tells us that God created foods ....
back to my original question...why can't a priest marry in the Catholic church?
I fail to see where God commands priests not to marry but only an opinion which the church clings to....
correct me if I am wrong
But neither food nor marriage is being rejected by people.
I'm sure that you aren't implying that fasting is 'rejecting food'. Why if we were really rejecting food we would never eat anything.
And if we were rejecting marriage we'd be rejecting it for all, not simply priests.
I'll remind you that Scripture also speaks of the apostles 'binding and loosing'.
Now, if the apostles were only going to 'bind' what was already bound (i.e. what was already in scripture or in practice), or were only going to loose what was already loose, why give them authority? It appears to me that Jesus was speaking here of the fact that the apostles were given the authority to make PASTORAL DECISIONS which would involve changing of binding something to 'loosening', and 'loosening something' to binding IF said things were not intrinsically bound to only one concept.
Now marriage, for example, is one time, one man, one woman. But marriage is also a free choice. Likewise the choice to be single is a free choice.
Some may choose to marry because they 'love'; some may choose to marry to be 'provided for'; some may choose to provide for others, some may choose not in 'love' per se but in obedience to parents, etc. etc. etc.
And some may choose to be single because they truly wish to be single. Others may choose if the loved one marries another, or if their intended dies, or if they suddenly become poor, etc. etc.
But marriage is always one man one woman. . .not two men, not two women. The priests/bishops/pope can never 'loose' marriage to become something it is not.
However, they can pastorally require that those called to marriage NOT present themselves to the priesthood. That's perfectly reasonable. After all protestants themselves in the 19th century when sending off men to the missions often insisted on said pastors being MARRIED and NOT SINGLE. IOW, they were 'mandated to marry' IF they wished to serve in the missions.
What's the difference between the prudential decision of the 19th century protestant leaders demanding a 'married' clergy, and the prudential decision of the Catholic Church of the 21st century demanding a celibate one?