Another question from the "Intriguing Question" thread

FORBIDDING TO MARRY

http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They "renounce marriage" (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.

But is there scriptural precedent for this practice of restricting membership in a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy? Yes. Paul, writing once again to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge" (5:11–12).

This "first pledge" broken by remarriage cannot refer to previous wedding vows, for Paul does not condemn widows for remarrying (cf. Rom. 7:2-3). It can only refer to a vow not to remarry taken by widows enrolled in this group. In effect, they were an early form of women religious—New Testament nuns. The New Testament Church did contain orders with mandatory celibacy, just as the Catholic Church does today.

Such orders are not, then, what Paul meant when he warned against "forbidding to marry." The real culprits here are the many Gnostic sects through the ages which denounced marriage, sex, and the body as intrinsically evil.

 

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/lent.htm


Q: Isn't abstaining from meat one of the "doctrines of demons" Paul warned about in 1 Timothy 4:1-5?

A: Short answer: Not unless Daniel was practicing a doctrine of demons.


Long answer: When Paul warned of those who "forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods" he has in mind people with the Manichean belief that sex is wrong and certain foods, like meat, are intrinsically immoral. (Thus the spiritual ideal for many modern New Agers is a celibate vegetarian, as in the Eastern religions.)

We know that Paul has in mind those who teach sex and certain foods are intrinsically immoral because he tells us that these are "foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer" (1 Tim. 4:3b-5).

Sex and all kinds of food are good things (which is why the Catholic Church has marriage for a sacrament and heartily recommends the practice eating to its members), and this is precisely why it is fitting for them to be given up as part of a spiritual discipline. Thus Daniel gave up meat (as well as wine, another symbol of rejoicing) and Paul endorses the practice of temporary celibacy to engage in a special spiritual discipline of increased prayer (1 Corinthians 7:5). By giving up good things and denying them to ourselves we encourage an attitude of humility, free ourselves from dependence on them, cultivate the spiritual discipline of being willing to make personal sacrifices, and remind ourselves of the importance of spiritual goods over earthly goods.

In fact, if there was an important enough purpose, Paul recommended permanently giving up marriage and meat. Thus he himself was celibate (1 Corinthians 7:8), he recommended the same for ministers (2 Timothy 2:3-4), and he recommended it for the unmarried so they can devote themselves more fully to the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32-34) unless doing so would subject them to great temptations (1 Cointhians 7:9). Similarly, he recommended giving up meat permanently if it would prevent others from sinning (1 Corinthians 8:13).

Thus Paul certainly had nothing against celibacy or giving up meat -- even on a permanent basis -- so long as one wasn't saying that these things are intrinsically evil, which is what he was condemning the "doctrines of demons" passage.

Since the Catholic Church only requires abstinence from meat on a temporary basis, it clearly does not regard meat is immoral. Instead, it regards it as the giving up of a good thing (which in less economically developed regions -- including the whole world until very recently -- was expensive and thus eaten at festive occasions, making it a sign of rejoicing) to attain a spiritual goal.

 

forbidding to marry and abstaining from meats means:

baptism into the death of Christ (join with Christ)
the lords supper. (partake of true spiritual food)

although it does remind one of some secluded monk somewheres eating a bowl of beans..

 

Peace of Christ to all.

Forbidding to marry was referring to the heresy that stated that there was a good god and an evil god. Every man was good and was merely trapted in an evil body. Therefore it was wrong to marry and bring new life into an evil body. I apologize but I do not remember the specific name of this heresy. I will do further research and post more later.

Also the abstaining from meat was not meant as the meatless Fridays or a person choosing to be a vegetarian. It was dealing with the heresies that wouldn't eat meat because you could possibly be eating your reincarnated relative.

 

No, you can have meat during Lent. The Church only aks you don't eat meat on Fridays of Lent.

 

Greetings to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I wanted to share some personal observations regarding this subject. Being brought up Baptist and now a Catholic Christian, I have some knowledge of both sides. (So to speak.)

As I child, I remember hearing 1 Tim 4:1-5 as a reason of why it was wrong for a priest not to have a wife. All the other verses where Paul recommends celibacy were overlooked.

I had also heard the statement that if the priest were allowed to marry then the priests wouldn't be involved in sexual immorality.
This is truly one of the most ignorant statements that I have ever heard. I know a few married Christian pastors (from different denominations) who were guilty of the sin of immorality whether it be extramarital or child abuse. (But that's an entirely different thread.)

Anyhow, I knew a lot of PKs, missionary kids, and evangelist kids growing up. The majority of these kids are lost in the immorality that they became involved with. Please understand that I am not saying that I was a perfect Christian girl growing up, I hung out with these kids. I praise God for His grace and mercy for bringing me back to Him.

My friends resented the fact that their fathers were more involved with the lives of their congregation then what they were with their family life. Please understand that I am not implying that all ministers are like this, but this is the way that my friends felt.

One of the priest at my parish has been in his vocation for almost 60 years. Despite being 83 he is still active in the work of the Lord. He visits the sisters in the convent, visits the sick in the hospital, visits the parish shut-ins, conducts services and classes at the prison, travels around to parishes in the diocese that do not have a fulltime priest, serves in the community on several different boards, ect.

I realize that serving the Lord in a pastorial capacity is a 24X7X365 life. My parish priest said that if he were married he would be torn between the needs of his wife/family and the needs of his flock.

I can see exactly what he means.

 

Yes.

 

Go back up and read my first couple of posts to this thread. Your questions are addressed there.