Why priestly celibacy must continue in the Catholic Church

Paul who stole the teachings of Jesus from James the brother of christ and tried killing James by pushing him down the steps of the temple is hardly a good roll model Gearoid. James was executed by Annabus Bar Annabus(high priest) in concert with Paul. The history of the period is more interesting than the propoganda provided in the new testament where the gospels of some apostles were deliberately deleted.

P.S. I DO believe that Jesus would consider Sexism to be a grave sin, BTW!

Oh for crying out loud! If Nary, the Mother of God and Mary of Magdella and the bleeding woman who touched the hem of Jesus' robe were not PRIESTS, then you expect me to believe that the new retiree Pope, given all for which he should be condemned to a life of shame, IS a priest? Those women did SO much more for my Christian faith than Benny did, BY FAR!!!

I agree that married priests were involved in the early Church and certainly the Bible did not categorically state that celibacy was automatically mandated for the priesthood. But Jesus and later St Paul implied that the Kingdom of God is best attained by us wholly concentrating on leaving behind the materialist distractions of this world. St Paul advised that while a married man and woman are concerned with the things of this life the unmarried man and woman are best positioned to devote all their time to the gospel..."and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.."(1 Corinthians 7:34). This is not to disparage marriage as it is a holy sacrament which is vital to the life of the Church but ordained priests and bishops are responsible for the spiritual well being of hundreds if not thousands of people. Thus their duty is to Christ and His Church which the celibate lifestyle can facilitate.

There's one major error in this article. The early church did not have celibate priests. This was introduced about half way through their history.

Kilsally, This is typical Fundamentalist garbage! At least the Catholic Church differentiates between "mortal" and "venial" sins, though it usually exaggerates the "evil" anything sexual outside of marriage. I insist, there is a BIG difference between a liar and a murderer! Anyone who thinks otherwise is mentally & spiritually challenged. Also, "blasphemy" is free speech! I, and every other human being has a right to criticize a tyrannical god! For example, if a god feels we should be "sent to Hell", for the non transgressive acts I have described, he should get himself an existance, like we would tell a man to "get a life".

the whole point has been missed ,what should count is how holy a man is,how much good he does,his humanity and caring for the poor and downtrodden,not dress in silks and satins and purples with gold rings,the church has lost its way,it bears no relationship to the jesus i have read about.When i look at these cardinals priests,i dont see him.I cant believe the depravity that has endured for centuries,the political manipulation,the crusades,the burning of witches,the spanish inquisition,the suppression of science,the failure to supress and condemn paedophiles,all of which has weakened the the church and undermined and tarnished the thousands of good and decent men and women in the church.the church of england has married men in it and they arent all bad.Good most of them just like the catholics.

Kilsally, Martin Luther King would not have deprived LGBTs of any civil right. Such laws are unjust by his criteria of "just law" and "unjust law." I'm not interested in King's or anyone else's judgment of private sexual morality. For that reason, SingleDonald's gossip about MLK and JFK does not interest me. The New Testament is clear in calling for faithfulness in sexual relationships AND for leaving the judgment of sexual morality to God. Those two admonitions apply to all sexual orientations, yet consistently heterosexuals violate this core teaching by condemning other sexualities while ignoring heterosexual adultery. It's an abuse of scripture to ferret out moral "rules" designed as warnings for particular historical cultures and to interpret them as applying to wholly different situations in our time. It's folly, for example, to find a condemnation of homosexuality in a scriptural warning to priests of Israel to avoid the sexual customs of neighboring tribes whose priests raped boys or had sex with male prostitutes in their temples. In so many ways we go wrong when we conjure up inherited moral codes to judge others! What a limited, fallible, human near-sightedness that is, so different from the prophets' visions of divine justice.

The ecclesia which styles itself the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church is right, but for the wrog reasons. Control of sexuality isn't unique to Christian orthodoxy. Where they get it wrong though is that instead of trying to sublimate a irrepressible impulse, they repress it instead, causing it to come out pervertedly. They really should read Freud.

singledonald - man condemns himself to hell by wantonly sinning - god see`s no difference between `little sins` and big sins - a liar and a murderer are both sinners and both unable to get into Heaven and as the bible states `all have sinned and come short`, that is why we need a saviour. Salvations is freely given by grace to us that are undeserving - some accept the free gift, others reject it as they like their sins - God as a just God will then have to judge who is pure and who is not - without Christ non are pure, but Christ is freely available to one and all.

eiramach - you do of course realise King was against homosexual lifestyles?

Thank you, helmut365! Kilsally, I accept the idea of a Savior, but one who will not condemn mankind to "Hell", over minor to non transgressive acts. Such a deity would be a tyrant, not "all good, and all just". BTW, the correct term is "Evangelicals", not "Evangelicists", which I previously wrote. Eiriamach, we have disagreed on some points, but I appreciate your post below. As great as Martin Luther King was, he cheated numerous times on Coretta. Also, I have read that he was inconsiderate of his paramours needs, similar to JFK, after he became president. Sadly, MLK & JFK were filled with a sense of "entitlement", which, of course, means they felt they could take what they wanted, when they wanted it! This is not the way any man, or woman should behave. Ironically, I read that when JFK was a congressman, he was very considerate of his women's needs. His nickname then of "Mattress Jack" was not a reference to insensitivity in the bedroom, just of abundance! It's sad how, "power corrupts"!

SingleDonald, I think Christianity is ready for a new theology of sin. The 20th century gave rise to much re-thinking about sin and vice, which are social as well as, or even more than, individual. Is it possible to "love your neighbor as yourself" when you live in a culture that condemns people for their sexuality and encourages selfishness, exploitation, and greed (Romney's cult of prosperity)? Christianity was born out of the need to transform human culture, and today more than ever, we need a transformation from our culture of individualism and violence to one of mutual understanding, collective action, and inclusiveness. Theologians like Tillich and Martin Buber and Martin Luther King showed us that "sin is separation" (Tillich's words), sin damages the human personality with unjust laws that treat different groups differently (King) and sin is turning away from the world instead of engaging with the public life of our nation and helping to heal it (Buber). All of these directly contradict the doctrinal fundamentalism of today's Roman Church, which substitutes a "retreat" from "secularism" and sex for the work of cultural transformation. (So I agree with you.)

Singledonald - you have missed the point of the gospel. Heaven is pure and holy. The non pure and unholy cannot enter into heaven. From the fall of man in the garden of Eden, man has been both unpure and unholy and cannot enter into heaven, no matter how many good deeds they do they are still unpure, hence the need of a saviour.

hmm, yes it is a gift for those that are able but is not compulsory in scriptures. It says in 1 Corinthians 7 - "..to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." 1 TIMOTHY 3 says "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." and 1 TIMOTHY 3 "If a man desire the office of a bishop... A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober...."