Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: With all due respect for Catholics... Message-ID: Date: 29 May 90 07:15:35 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH Lines: 57 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Re: Steven Timm In article , st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) writes: >A recent post mentioned the council of Nicaea's declaration that >priests be celibate. Though this is no doubt a long-standing tradition >(and not without scriptural support (1 Corinthians 7)), I have wondered >how Catholics explain that St. Peter had a mother-in-law and was thus >obviously married? Hi, Steven! From my own lowly perspective :), I don't think Peter's marital status would affect things much, unless there were some deliberate attempt by the early Church to JUSTIFY celibacy by use of the life of St. Peter. To the best of my knowledge, the Church has not tried to do that. (Is anyone out there certain of this, one way or the other?) Celibacy, in the eyes of the Church, is a condition that fosters a deeper and more devoted life to God. That fact alone is enough to promote celibacy as a beneficial Christian force. NOTE: in this setting, it can be seen that the Church does NOT condemn non-celibacy... any more than the Church condemns the laity for not being of religious high status. I recall that St. Paul urged celibacy to ALL Christians, but even he made a point of saying that it was merely a recommendation... a piece of non-divine advice, if you will. "Should you marry, however, you will not be committing sin." (1 Corinthians 7:28) "The unmarried man is busy with the Lord's affairs, concerned with pleasing the Lord; but the married man is busy with this world's demands and occupied with pleasing his wife. This means he is divided." (1 Corinthians 7:32-33) It seems that the Council of Nicaea took these bits of advice to heart, since it was in their interest to encourage the holiest possible lives in priests and other religious. So Peter, though acclaimed the first pope (somewhat retroactively, it seems... :) ), was in no danger of sin, on this occasion. I doubt that Peter had anything to do with later celibacy rulings. -- Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu