Because it's not a command.

1Co 7:6  But this I say by way of concession, not of command.

Plus if you look at some of Paul's other letters, he tells those who are leaders of the church to be a one woman man.

So there is clearly nothing wrong with it.  Plus wives have played a major part in ministry. 

It's funny how you've mentioned that you've seen problems with Pastors being married, when it's the unmarried Priest making the news if you know what I mean.

Its not a command, but it is a sugestion, and one that he pushs as being a serios one. So why do not ministers take it as a serios one? Why is ok to Cherish certain scripture, but totally ignore others.

As for the news, its the media, they take what they think will sell. Have you ever done any investigation into the matter, or just listen to the news?

My understanding is that Luther viewed Paul's statement as a suggestion or opinion, not a commandment. He disavowed celibacy on the basis of Gen. 1:28 and Matthew 19:12.

If we think about it logically, Luther's idea of the priesthood of all believers, would mean that celibacy of the priesthood would have the inevitable result that the human race would come to an end (if we were all Lutherans). So in his view, celibacy of priests would involving disobeying a commandment of God (Gen. 1:28).

 As my training was in history, not Scriptures, those of you with more knowledge of the Bible please chip in. The first paragraph above is factual but the second is opinion (based on logic?).

But why would a suggestion or opinion be taken so lightly from one of the more influential persons of Christendom? Your Matthew reference is actually arguing more for a celibate authority, Plus a man without a family could be more fruitful in his time and preaching of the Gospel and could multiply the Body of Christ more.

I was celibate for 27yrs, and was not of any religious reasoning for it, in fact I was a agnostic for much of my young adult life. People are much more resilient then you think, and you would think that a Man of God would be more resilient actually. Sorry I am not seeing any sound scripture to ignore a strong suggestion from  major player in the core of the Faith.

JAG - I must admit that Luther's use of Mat 19:12 to oppose celibacy confused me. I did not take the time to research his thinking on that passage. Perhaps those with a better grounding on the Scriptures can fill in the blanks as to his interpretation.

Dealing with your other points: First, Gen 1:28 is a commandment from God that celibacy disobeys. So, on a scale, with Paul's suggestion on one side , and God's commandment on the other, which has more weight? Second, would not a married priest have certain advantages over a celibate one? Less sexual frustration and temptation comes to mind. Also, would not a married priest have a better understanding of the trials and tribulations of marriage, and thus be better able to give council. I concede that a celibate priest would have more time to devote to his flock, but would he be more effective?  NOTE - I use the term priest as a generic term for religious leader .

So if someone is born sterile, or is not able to have children, are they in everlasting sin? Again I can take Gen 1:28 as for any form of being fruitful, spreading the word of God is being just as fruitful as having children. I do not see it as a commandment in such a way that you are trying to portray it.

As for marriage counselor, that's what the congregation is for actually. When we went through marriage prep at the Church, we only saw the priest once or twice, and then it was only going over the theology of marriage and the technicalities of marriage in the eyes of the Church, the rest of the time it was with various congregation who are in fact married. If you were haveing marriage problems, you saw a preist and he oversaw your case as it went through varios couples as they helped you.

No, see Matthew 19:1-15:

Greetings Jason,

That scripture is more proof that a person of the cloth should be celibate actually.

I was referring to Hastings reference to Gen. 1:28 that its a commandment that we are to multiple. 1st its not a commandment, its part of the old covenant, and people are born sterile. So I do not see it as relevant to the question at hand myself.

I don't know what JAG is trying to prove.  The Roman Catholics are the ones who need to explain why they made something Required for the Priest, when the Bible doesn't require it. 

Sounds like more Legalism from the Roman Catholic church.

Sola Scriptura!

I'm not Catholic, but I know from articles I've read that for over 1200 years, the Roman Catholic Church didn't require priests to be celebate and that many were married and fathered children.  I don't recall ever reading why the change was made. 

EEE,

Its not a requirement, its a oath. There are married preists with children in the Church, especially in the non-Latin rites.

I am trying to figure out why protostents decide to ignore scriptures when its to there liking. There is solid scripture stating that people who want to take up the cloth should attempt to be celibate.

But you bring up another point that I will bring up in another thread.

Cactus,

The book is still out on why priests are asked for a oath of celibacy. Some historians point to the fact that Church was attempting to save property instead of it going to the children, others point to the historical and scripture backing. Today its seen more of a ability for a priest to give more of his time to the congregation. Although in the orthodox churches and non-Latin its very common to have a married pastor, only religious orders(monks) are celibate and only they are elected to bishop or patriarch.

JAG,
Protestants aren't ignoring scripture, what we are talking about was Pauls opinion, his advice, not a command from God. It would be better if missionaries and Priests were not married so they would have nothing to tie them down and they would be free to do what they needed to do for God but, like Day by Day said, Paul also says that it would be better to marry then burn. You may want to talk to a Catholic priest about why their church does not allow them to marry. It may have more to do with their own rules and beliefs and less to do with their interpretation of the Word.

Greetings Bunny,

I am Catholic, and I have given fairly direct scripture that People of the Cloth should be celibate. All I am asking is why is it being ignored? Is Sola Scripture only importent on certain items?

Also just to clear up what Paul said,

You have not posted direct scripture that "People of the Cloth should be celibate".  You are seriously making an error of reading into the text.  Where in that chapter is he even addressing a Preacher/ Priest?  He is even making a comment toward widows(which are women), and the bible is clear they are not to be in the position as the overseer of the church.

Here is scripture directed to the overseer of the church:

 1 Timothy 3:

 1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)

Hopefully this will help you see a legalistic teaching from the Catholic church.  This is one of many legalistic traditions and you should leave immediately.  The teaching that you must do sacrements to receive the Grace from Christ is the dangerous one, and this is the main problem I have with the Catholic church.