Do you believe there is a political motivation behind it? Doing that in a regular fashion asserts evangelical predominance by default. Evangelicals happen to be more pro-Israel as well, which made me think.
Alternatively, do you believe the lifelong vow of chastity to be compatible with human biology? Or is it just a recipe for disaster?
monks already have this vow, forcing clergy to take it is redundant and unbiblical since pastors/teachers/clergy should be the husband of one wife and have children, if they have no family experience they will be less apt to educate the masses on family life.
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage " 1 Timothy 4:3
The roman papal church forbids clerical marriage, they hide and conceal predators on their payroll, so this is a form of deception, they also teach heresies, so they're already fulfilling some of this prophecy.
Chastity hasn't been an issue in the Church for nearly two thousand years. It has only been since the advent of modernism and the filling of seminaries with revolutionaries that the clergy has been so corrupt.
yeah, dialectics. The purpose is to make you think that the politicians and the vatican are not the same thing.
It hasn’t been around for nearly 2000 years
So funny story even when they let priests marry the still enforced chastity they then realized a few hundred years after that was dumb so the banned clergy from marrying as well. Because men of God having kids causes a ton of issues like does the son inherit the position, are the priests wife/children more loved and blessed then the rest of us, what if the priest has 17 kids like a good Catholic should does the laity have the shoulder the burden of providing for his whole family now, can the priest truly be dedicated to God if he is also dedicated to his family and on and on.
These are the people who promote things like child drag queens and tranny kids, OF COURSE there is an agenda behind this. They don't actually give any care to the victims, it is all to get at the Church.
This. The same people who want abortions and mutilate kids genitals attack the church just because She's their enemy.
They couldn't care less about the children when those same people are the ones advocating the "I'm a pedo but not a monster".
The Church had the roman empire against her, the arians, corruption of the clergy during renaissance, prot reform, French revolution etc and its still going strong. Now its modernism and gay priests but that will end one day.
Not knowing that back then there were cults saying you shouldn't marry be a winnie the pooh degenerate and implying Paul meant it as a prophecy.
1 Corinthians 7:1
Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
According to your logic Paul says I'll things about himself
More
Its more that the media will bash anything Christian whether it be Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox.
They just hate Christ wherever He is found.
It is good to not touch a woman, its a suggestion, the roman papy church strictly forbids its clergy to marry , don't lie. And this wasn't always the case for the first thousand years
…
Its an evil wicked innovation
So now Satan calls people to remain celibate then? Hmmmmm
Also Eastern priests can marry retard and in the early church celibacy was a common practice and the church on the 10th century more a less decided to enforce in the west so the priests would find more time to serve better god.
If you want to marry then do it. It means you are no good for a priest. Nobody forces you to become one.
Go cry somewhere else
Western clergy can't marry. Evil forbids marriage.
Suggesting celibacy is not equivalent. Repent.
Not an argument kid. Again you choose to be a priest. Nobody forces you.
Once you grow up you'll find out there are people who can keep their dick inside their pants.
well if u believe the jewish conspiracy its not unbelievable their is a conspiracy against the catholic church and the pedos and scandals are a expression of it, not saying that there aren't genuine pedos in the church apart from it though.
The bible literally says clergy should be married.
Nowhere does it forbid marriage for any calling. In fact it speaks against those who forbid marriage.
It is evil to forbid someone to marry who is called to be a preacher/pastor/cleric. And it was not always so for the Western Church.
Repent at least 100x.
The bible never says that you can divorce 3 times and that contraception is OK, yet…
The Church instituted it as a matter of discipline, so that men can fully devote their time to God. A man who has a family at home does not have time to run the parish and to run the family and he cannot fully devote to either duty. And the Council of Carthage said that even if a priest is married he shouldn't have relations with his wife and that that is Apostolic tradition.
Celibacy is not the cause of homosexual priests molesting boys and young men.
Why are prots so eager to say that celibate men would unleash their urges on little kids? Is that projection? Because the more reasonable thing would be that if a priest absolutely COULDN'T stay true to his vows he would probably find an adult female prostitute or something that wouldn't need to rely on extensive coverup networks.
''A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife…One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)'' 1 Tim 3
Your position literally runs contrary to the New Testament. Repent 1000x.
Whatever its reasons of heretical innovation, it is contradictory to the Holy Spirit speaking through the bible. Repent 1000x.
The fruits of your Church aren't fooling anyone anymore.
Oh, sorry, no last rites for your husband maam, I need to watch my kids while my wife is out grocery shopping. Sorry, no confession for longer than 30 minutes, I have to go make lunch for my kids, my wife is working the morning shift. Can't make it to the funeral sorry, I have a PT meeting because my teenage son got into a fight. No evening masses, I have to do homework with my kids. Can't run the parish finances properly because no time, can't meet people because of shor office hours, can't hold wedding preparation classes, can't run RCIA classes, can't run and organize youth programs, catechesis for the first communion and confirmation, etc etc etc.
I know that it's easy for protestant heretic pastors to marry since all they have to do is hold one 'service' a week, sing Oh happy day and go home.
...
Nice sources to go along with your atomic sized assertion. Paranoid much?
Stop drawing this false analogy. A wish that recognizes people have different gifts and callings, versus a mandatory injunction against marriage.
Even Peter had a wife.
''A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife…One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)'' 1 Tim 3
What part of that don't you understand?
2000 years of "tradition" and they still can't read the bible properly, and they still staple fan-fictions to it.
Woe is them.
Yes, one wish that recognizes that not all are fit to care for the things of the Lord but may have been given His gifts elsewhere. But if one IS to care for the things for the Lord, then he is to be unmarried, because otherwise he will be bound by worldly distractions. It is not a false analogy, it is you who are so blinded by your individual pride that you can't read things straight.
The church is the bride of Christ and this is the wife the epistle talks about. You are reading what you want to read, as is the essence of protestantism anyway.
Can the 30,000 denominations do it? Let me guess, yours is the only one that reads it properly!
It's definitely a political move to try and ruin society. Just look at the idea of legalizing gay marriage - it shouldn't have been a legal matter to begin with as marriage is a faculty of the church. But now that it's "legalized" they can use that as an attempt to push for more false churches that will allow such a sinful thing. They are trying to undermine the backbone of western society, the one thing that has stayed strong despite numerous attempts at crushing it.
the RCC is one of those 30,000. lmao
Yeah. The only legit one. rofl
The 29 999 denominations have one thing in common, they all hate the Catholic Church.
So do most catholics
"Catholics" aka people who only go to mass once a year
"Holy mary mother of God"
What a silly saying. Im starting to dislike this church but hey what can i do
Satan, you just jelly cuz Jesus loves me!
Do the easterners have this issue?
No. user's arguments are typical western familyphobia
That's why Easterners both Catholic and Orthodox don’t allow married priests to become bishops.
I think there's a mix. The mass media are hedonistic liberals, and that makes them extremely liable to slander any Trinitarian line since Christian dogma is explicitly against their lifestyles and that makes them mad. On the other hand, it's not like there aren't corrupt people on the business end to give them ammunition either these days. On that end we can go all the way down from Rembrandt Weakland-types in large dioceses to the more granular sections in the Catholic Church. Beyond that they can most certainly go into Prot lines as well, and they do, take Jim Bakker. So there's tons of wickedness for these people to exploit. I mean it's not like traditionalists don't speak of it, we can certainly say that this board, and more mainstream trad outfits like Church Militant are not thoughtless enough to not point out clerical corruption where it exists and certainly the secular press will gorge on that as well as anyone else. And amplify it for their own preferences.
It's also a Catch-22 scenario. For example we have the current problems with Theodore McCarrick, and there seems there may have been stonewalling to protect him and others like him over the years. When you have that kind of corruption, shining a light on it is quite recommended; homosexuality is grave enough even without the rape in question to blow into a new level of evil, and abuse can lead to loss of faith or self-murder (especially when it is given succor). But then if you expose it you get the liberals on it as well and certainly cause a loss of faith all the same. There doesn't seem to be a good answer in this day and age. I take it as a bad sign, with all the corruption to go around from every direction I expect things will get worse before they get better.
Yup must be the Evangelicals who are bad, not the Roman Catholic Church!
Such as not burning heretics like you?
What a winnie the pooh mistake indeed.
That's about as believable as a Muslim saying Jesus talks about Mohammad in the the Gospel of John
The abuse pre-dates Vatican 2
Except there are multiple references to Jesus having a bride in the Bible.
Dan Brown plz go and stay go.
This is a valid point and needed to be addressed, and we can see change for the better already happening on this matter.
However my point is, Catholics wouldn't play with all the financial trickery that ends up being a burden on the many for the benefit of the few.
The last Catholic president would have prevented the 2008 crisis by exposing the banking cartel before it could end the gold-standard. Over a million families lost their homes as a result of his assassination. Wage slavery is now rampant, people drug themselves, you see middle-class women entering prostitution to make ends meet (take a look at the sugar dating sites, now an industry). I don't see the Evangelical elite coming together to reverse the vicious cycle, quite the opposite.
Projecting much?