As Catholic, celibacy for priests has always been a given to me, but I started to wonder: why? I don't remember Jesus saying anything to Peter about being celibate. Was he? When did it all start and who decided it was going to be a requirement for Holy Orders? The question does not want to be controversial, I am just curious about when did priests begin to be celibate?
sort by best latest
Sounds like an interesting book, thanks for your answer. :)
Paul studied "at the feet of Gamaliel", a doctor of Mosaic Law. He would not have been accepted for study UNLESS he was married. The Pharisees taught that a man unmarried by age 20 was half a man. Paul was a widow or his wife left at his conversion.
You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.
I thought it probably was a man made law, thanks for your answer. :)
Be discriminatory, Robbie.
I have practised meditation and celibacy for many years. Purity is crucial to attract the Higher forces. The body is mystical and will not sustain the Higher Light while engaging in a sensuous life. Be slow and steady.
Paul, a well educated man, actually had a trade as a tentmaker and he was married, but his marriage took a lower priority to his ministry.
Edward, Sri Ramakrisha was married and so was the Buddha, Sri Krishna, Ananda Mai Ma and others. We know that St. Augustine and Francis both lived early questionable lives. Purity is really a very different cup of tea, whether in marriage or single.
I am unaware of any evidence Paul was married. Could you cite it, please?
The term "tentmaker," by the way, probably means "leatherworker." Tents would have been a large part of that trade, but not all of it.
In 1 Corinthians 7:8, Paul identifies himself as "agamos", ("unmarried" in Greek). "Agamos" is also used to describe a widower who was married but is no longer. As a Pharisee, it would have been culturally unusual for Paul to have remained unmarried.
It would have been equally unusual for Jesus to have remained a bachelor, but there is no reason other than that, and one or two questionable apocryphal statements, that he did. For Paul any indication of marriage is hopelessly weak, it seems to me.