Single life vocation

General
22

I didn’t say anything about marriage being valid without consummation. I explicitly affirmed the opposite: “a couple who cannot consummate cannot contract marriage.” That is Catholic teaching, and I agree with you on that point. And I also understand that divine decrees can overrule human marital customs — for example, Joseph and Mary had a valid marriage despite living chastely throughout it. Their marriage was valid because God Himself established it, not because it met ordinary human criteria. That circumstance is unique because God directly instituted it, but it still illustrates the basic point: God is not bound by physical limitations.

My only disagreement was with the exception you introduced — the idea that someone missing anatomy is a case where God would not heal. That is where your conclusion goes beyond what you just affirmed. You acknowledge that God could restore what is missing, but then you assert that He would not, without giving a theological principle that actually restricts divine action. Yet Scripture itself shows God restoring missing anatomy when it is His will — for example, when Jesus restored Malchus’s severed ear. My point was simply that physical impossibility never limits God’s power.

And just to be clear: nothing I said implied same‑sex marriage, female ordination, or any redefinition of marriage. The distinction I made was the standard one — if a couple cannot consummate, they cannot marry; if they can consummate but are infertile, they can marry and be open to life. That is all I was saying.

I’m not claiming that God will grow limbs, or will restore reproductive organs, or will intervene in every case of physical impossibility. I’m saying something much narrower and much more basic: physical impossibility never limits God’s power. What God chooses to do is governed by His will, not by human assumptions about what is “too far.”

And Scripture gives us concrete examples of God restoring missing anatomy when it serves His purpose — for instance, Jesus restored Malchus’s severed ear. That doesn’t mean God promises to do this universally; it simply means that we cannot treat physical impossibility as a boundary on divine action. God’s omnipotence is not fantasy — it is a revealed truth.

That’s why I pushed back on Cade’s exception. Saying “God could heal missing anatomy, but God would not” is not a theological principle; it’s a personal assumption. And personal assumptions cannot be used to draw universal conclusions about what God does or does not do.

Recognizing that God is not limited by physical constraints does not require abandoning reality or imagining arbitrary miracles. It simply means that we don’t build doctrines on the premise that God is unable to act. Catholic teaching is always rooted in what God has revealed about Himself, not in what seems “too far” from a human perspective.

I’ve never said that God’s extraordinary actions overturn or replace the ordinary means He has instituted. My point has been much simpler: physical impossibility never limits God’s power. What God chooses to do is governed by His will, not by human assumptions about what is “too far.”

You say you believe God can grow limbs, restore fertility, and perform miracles — and I agree. But then you introduce an exception: that someone missing anatomy is a case where God would not heal. That is the only claim I pushed back on. Scripture itself shows God restoring missing anatomy when it serves His purpose — for example, Jesus restored Malchus’s severed ear with a touch. That doesn’t mean God promises to do this universally; it simply means we cannot treat physical impossibility as a boundary on divine action.

That is not “abandoning norms,” nor is it redefining marriage, baptism, or anything else. It is simply recognizing the distinction between what God CAN do and what God WILL do. The Church never builds doctrine on the premise that God is unable to act. She builds doctrine on what God has revealed about His will.

So when I ask for a theological principle, I’m not accusing you of being non‑theological. I’m asking for the principle that would make your conclusion — “God would not heal in this case” — actually follow. Without such a principle, the claim remains a personal assumption, not a theological conclusion.

23

@Mathetria God, the Omnipotent can, by definition, do anything as God is not limited by anything, whatsoever.

Assuming God can’t, or won’t do something or even believing anything God does is unfair, puzzling, etc is a pointless waste of time. God will do what God will do. It is what it is (Est quod est.).

24

I agree with you on the core point: God, being omnipotent, is not limited by anything whatsoever. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. The distinction I’m making is simply this:

God CAN do anything, but God WILL do only what He wills.
That’s not speculation — that’s basic Catholic theology.

My point has never been “God will grow limbs,” or “God will always override biology,” or “God will intervene in every case of physical impossibility.” My point is much narrower:

Physical impossibility never limits God’s power.
What God chooses to do is governed by His will, not by human assumptions about what is “too far.”

And Scripture itself shows God restoring missing anatomy when it serves His purpose — for example, Jesus restored Malchus’s severed ear with a touch. That doesn’t mean God promises to do this universally; it simply means we cannot treat physical impossibility as a boundary on divine action.

So when I push back on statements like “God would not heal in that case,” I’m not questioning God’s will — I’m questioning the assumption that physical limits define what God does or does not do. They don’t. Only God’s will does.

That’s all I’ve been saying.

25

“too far” I would add to that: mysterious, puzzling, beyond our comprehension, different than what we assume or believe, willing something different than what we expect, anything we think might be unfair, et cetera, et cetera. Assuming that God can’t change His mind on anything that we believe of God is also limiting God’s omniscience.

There was a time in my life when I was gripped with fear and apprehension brought about by scruples and that fear extended to a fear of God (not the kind of “fear” that Catholicism teaches is the “good” kind of “fear” one should have of God, which isn’t really fear). I thankfully made true peace with that years ago. We don’t know the mind of God, we can never understand it. If I truly live my life as much as I’m capable, toward kindness and fostering peace and goodwill towards others rather than the opposite, in the end, God will do what God will choose to do. We may have an impact on our fate; our choices may provide a basis for God’s decision, but we do not decide our fate. God decides. We can’t hold God to any covenant, wave a contract and demand that God honor what we believe to understand said contract to be or call God out and demand justice or arbitration if in the end God’s will is not what we expect.

I would add for clarification, what I’ve written shouldn’t be taken as anger, frustration, mistrust, etc of God at all. Any such thing I’ll say again is completely useless and senseless in relation to Omniscience. Everything else is absolutely submissive and subordinate.

26

I agree with you that God’s will is ultimately inscrutable and that He is not bound by human expectations, assumptions, or demands. That’s precisely why I’ve been drawing a distinction between what God CAN do and what God WILL do. We know from revelation that God’s power is limitless; we do not know in advance how He will choose to exercise that power in any particular case.

My point has never been that God will perform any specific miracle, or that we should expect Him to override nature whenever we imagine a scenario. My point is simply that physical impossibility never limits God’s power, and Scripture itself shows this. Jesus restored Malchus’s severed ear with a touch — a literal case of missing anatomy being recreated. That doesn’t mean God promises to do this universally; it means only that we cannot treat physical limits as boundaries on divine action.

So when I question statements like “God would not heal in that case,” I’m not claiming to know God’s mind or God’s will. I’m questioning the assumption that physical constraints define what God does or does not do. They don’t. Only God’s will does.

And I agree with you that we cannot hold God to a contract, demand arbitration, or insist that He act according to our expectations. God’s covenants bind us, not Him. But acknowledging that God’s will is sovereign does not require assuming that God’s power is limited. It simply means we recognize both truths at once:

  • God CAN do anything.

  • God WILL do what He wills.

That’s all I’ve been saying.

27

I agree with everything you’ve said here. You’re acknowledging omnipotence for what it is.

28

I’m glad we’re on the same page. What I’ve been expressing from the beginning is simply that God’s omnipotence means physical impossibility never limits His power, and His sovereign will determines what He actually chooses to do.

29

To add to your point, there is a heavily documented case in the 17th century named miracle of calanda, where a man’s missing, amputated leg miraculously was regrown after praying to Our Lady of the Pillar when it was amputated 2.5 years ago.

1 Like
30

Valid point you made here.

31

The disicples of Jesus were not married. The saints of the Catholic church were not married. This doesn’t mean that they had no association with others. It means that the purpose of associating with others was for the encouragement of their real marriage, which was with God.
It is not a question of being a loner, or one who socially inclined. It is a question of how much conviction we have that the goal of life is the cultivation of our eternal relationship with God.
To fall in love, to be enamoured with someone of the opposite gender, to think of them as a source of fulfillment of our being…the whole world is involved in this adventure…whether they are religious or not. But those who remain detached from the opposite gender…it is because they have made a different choice as to how and where they will find fulfillment of the heart.

Spiritual life is not based on sentiment. Just as material accomplishments are are based on scientific knowledge, so also, spiritual life has to be based on the science of the spirit. The magic of sincere devotion is that the heart becomes fulfilled through a living relationship with God. To that degree, one becomes progressively detached from the sources of the material gratifation of the senses, from the desire for social status and recognition, from the desire for wealth, etc.

If one wants to become a priest of a nun, it is not because they don’t have a strong social inclination; they don’t have a strong social inclination because they have a strong spiritual inclination. As I have already written, all the saints in the church have been single. It wasn’t a question of austerity; it was a choice based on inclination due to positive attraction. In other words, they were spiritually alive to the extent that other forms of attraction became of less interest. Some people are more attracted to be spending their time in prayer and spreading the good word of God than in diciplining children, or watching a sit-com with their spouce.

And if one wants to be single as a worldly person, there’s nothing wrong with that. Nicola Telsa who invented AC electricity never had a romantic relationship. But his mind was consumed by his fascination with nature and science.
One way or another, the heart desires satisfaction, be it through the desire for wealth, or social status, or the desire for family or whatever. But all these modes of material pursuit were already there before Jesus came and said that everything we are looking for can be found through the path that he leads us on…the path leading to “straight is the gate, and narrow the way.”

32

Actually, the Bible says that Saint Peter was married, and it doesn’t say that no other disciples were. One of St. Paul’s letters (to Timothy, I think) says that a bishop should be married only once. Saint Elizabeth Seton was married. These don’t undermine your other comments, they just show that disciples and saints have not been limited to celibacy.

2 Likes
33

Greetings gentle friend! Yes, I agree with your conclusion.
Joseph and Mary could not have been ordinary people, but very special spiritual souls who were chosen by God to be the father and mother of Jesus, nursing him, holding him on their lap, spontaneously expressing their feelings of parental love towards him. Spontaneous feelings of love towards Jesus!

There are other examples in the Bible of married people who were intmately close with God. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, Issac.

Isaac and Rebekah: Isaac regularly communed with God, and Rebekah actively sought the Lord’s will for her family.

Elkanah and Hannah: The parents of the prophet Samuel demonstrated deep devotion. Despite family trials, Hannah had an intimate relationship with God that allowed her to cry out in prayer, while Elkanah faithfully led his family in yearly worship.

Zechariah and Elizabeth: Described as “righteous in the sight of God,” this married couple lived blamelessly and were chosen by God to be the parents of John the Baptist (Luke 1:6).

Priscilla and Aquila: This New Testament couple worked closely with the Apostle Paul, hosted a church in their home, and selflessly dedicated their marriage to advancing early Christianity.

When a great ambassador comes to us from God, he plays the role of being one of us in so many ways, just for teaching us. Just like when Jesus was baptised by John…John could recognize him and admitted without hesitation that Jesus was such a great personality that he, John, felt himself unfit even to tie the laces on Jesus’s sandals. But Jesus replied saying “Yes, but let us teach by example, that everyone who embarks on a spiritual path, should be accepted by a teacher, and should receive blessings from a teacher.” In today’s world, there are so many people who feel that they can approach God without being accepted and blessed by spiritual authorities. But Jesus taught, by example, that this spirit of independence is inappropriate. Therefore, although Jesus does not require to be baptised by anyone, he submits to the process for the purpose of setting an example for the rest of us.

Great teachers are assigned various social roles for showing us that a godly life can be integrated into our social existence. And this is necessary, because most adults on our planet are family-oriented.

34

Thanks, Peter1. I just named people who came to my mind, and I missed some obvious ones. Joseph and Mary! This is a worse oversight on my part, because yesterday, on our wedding anniversary, I gave my wife John Michael Talbot’s album For the Bride, the bride being the Blessed Mother.

35

The New Testament is explicit that Peter was married: Jesus heals Peter’s mother‑in‑law (Matthew 8:14–15; Mark 1:29–31; Luke 4:38–39). A mother‑in‑law necessarily implies a wife. Beyond that, Scripture does not tell us which of the other apostles were or were not married, so the claim that “none of the disciples were married” goes beyond what the biblical text actually says.

Separately from Scripture, Maria Valtorta’s private revelations—which are not part of public revelation and not binding on Catholics—include additional narrative details about the apostles’ family lives. According to her visions:

  • Peter had a wife named Porphirea, who was gentle, shy, and devoted. They had no biological children, but they adopted a boy named Jabez, whom Jesus later renamed Marjiam, and who later became one of His disciples.

  • Bartholomew (Nathaniel) had a wife named Anne, and they had daughters.

  • Philip had a wife named Mary, and their daughters became virgin disciples of Jesus.

  • Judas of Simon (Iscariot) had been engaged to a woman named Johanna, but he repudiated her.

The Catholic Church teaches that while private revelation is not canonical and does not add new doctrine, authentic private revelation is genuinely inspired by God and can illuminate or help us live more deeply the truths already contained in the deposit of faith (cf. CCC 67). In other words, private revelation is not canonical Scripture, but it can provide spiritually fruitful insight without contradicting public revelation.

So the bottom line is simple:
Scripture confirms at least one married apostle (Peter), and it does not claim the others were unmarried. Private revelation may offer additional details, but it does not replace or expand the deposit of faith.

36

Thank you Mathetria!

I accept you corrections to my inappropriate statements. And, I beg you to consider what I really wish to express. Whether one is married or not is not the important issue. One can be married and be a saint. One can be single and be a demon. The real issue is between our tendency to serve God or to serve Mammon. Jesus says we cannot serve both at the same time, because the two orientations are mutually exclusive. Therefore we have to understand what it means to be a servant of one or the other.
Jesus explains that one who does “good works” is not necessarily the man who is dear to God or close to God. An atheist can do “good works”. Jesus says that the most important rule of spiritual life is to “Love the Lord thy God with all of thy heart, mind and strength.” Religion simply means to be engaged in the ongoing cultivation of this loving feeling towards God. This is the means of attaining spiritual perfection, and this is the goal of life.

Service of Mammon means to seek our feeling of satisfaction in any other way, be it “good” or “bad”. Again, “good works” is not enough. God wants our love. Because God is personal…and He wants us to be personal with Him.
Therefore married or single is not the question. A married person can live in a way that every thought, every word, and every deed…is done with a living aspiration in the heart, that, "Let my thoughts be a source of pleasure to my Lord. Let my every word, morning to night, be a source of pleasure to my Lord. And, “Let my every action be a source of pleasure to God.”

In this way, such a person is not only officially engaged in serving God as his master…but his very being is a living demonstration of his love for God, through his thoughts, words, and deeds.
Marriage is not an impediment. Husband and wife can serve God together. They can be a source of inspiration to each other in this way.
However, generally speaking, people don’t get married because they want to serve God together. They get married because a man wants and woman, and a woman wants a man. This “wanting” is a personal desire. We say “I love you.” But actually that love is not pure. It is mixed with personal desire. It is mixed with, “I want to enjoy you.” Whereas love for God means, “I want to be enjoyed by You.” In this sense, having a loving realtionship with God is like being married to God, envisioning God as my Master, and myself as His subordinate servant, in love.

Therefore when I speak against marriage, it is not that marriage in itself is a disqualfiication in our cultivation of love for God…but generally people are attracted to the opposite sex because their hearts are afflicted with the desires of the flesh. And that is the meaning of “Mammon”… wanting sensual gratification, subtle or gross, as a source of personal fulfillment. A person doesn’t want to get married so that he or she can give pleasure to God. They want to enjoy being with the other person. Whereas, one who is established in undivided, unalloyed, pure love of God…the symptom is that they no longer have any self-centered desires. The shining example is Jesus himself, when he envisions the horrible persecution that awaits him, simply because he wants to preach the glories of the Lord. He can forsee his persecuation, but still he prays, knowing that God is always in control, “Not my will, but Thy will be done.” In other words, Jesus is praying to God, saying, “You have sent me here as Your ambassador, to preach Your glories. And if, in order to do Your work, I have to undergo these terrible ordeals, then my Lord, let it be. Not what I want…but whatever You want. Not my will, but Thy will be done.” This is real love for God. Not wanting anything other than God’s pleasure. This is all that I am trying to say.

But who can behave in this selfless way? Only one who has love for God. Because the symptom of one who has love for God in his heart…is that all worldly desires for personal gain and safety no longer afllict him. This is the “yoke” of love that Jesus wears. And this is what Jesus wishes to share with us, when he says, “Accept the yoke that I wear. You will find it to be very nice. The truth shall set you free.”

37

I understand that wasn’t the important issue. I just wanted to provide marriage details regarding some of the apostle’s lives that aren’t mentioned in Scripture. Another detail I’ve learned pertains to Thomas — he was from Ramah in Judea, a goldsmith, had a twin sister, and was unmarried I believe.

Thank you for taking the time to write that out, I’m in agreement with you.