Celibacy is a discipline. He had ample time to practice it in seminary and make a decision before taking a vow before God.
Unfortunately his Church makes no provision for him to be married.
The Eastern Catholic Churches allow for married priests. However, the decision to marry must precede ordination and takes precedence over ministering to a congregation. In the Latin Church, there are married priests who have converted from the Episcopal Church. They are allowed to enter under The Pastoral Provision.
He loved this woman and joined a church that would allow him to serve God and remain a Christian.
You are suggesting that he loved the woman first but chose to disregard his "call to marriage" in order to pursue a "call to priesthood". Do you know this for a fact?
I'd like to know if you think you could remain celibate all of your life. You attack this man for not being able to reach a standard that you yourself cannot reach. A little hypocritical I think.
Although most people are at some point in their lives called to the married state, the vocation of celibacy is explicitly advocated—as well as practiced—by both Jesus and Paul.
So far from "commanding" marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).
It is only because of this "temptation to immorality" (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their "conjugal rights" (7:3); he specifically clarifies, "I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:6-7, emphasis added).
Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).
Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).
Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":
"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).
Notice that this sort of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom" is a gift, a call that is not granted to all, or even most people, but is granted to some. Other people are called to marriage. It is true that too often individuals in both vocations fall short of the requirements of their state, but this does not diminish either vocation, nor does it mean that the individuals in question were "not really called" to that vocation. The sin of a priest doesn’t necessarily prove that he never should have taken a vow of celibacy, any more than the sin of a married man or woman proves that he or she never should have gotten married. It is possible for us to fall short of our own true calling.
Celibacy is neither unnatural nor unbiblical. "Be fruitful and multiply" is not binding upon every individual; rather, it is a general precept for the human race. Otherwise, every unmarried man and woman of marrying age would be in a state of sin by remaining single, and Jesus and Paul would be guilty of advocating sin as well as committing it. source
Enjoy your stone-tossing.
What the Catholic Church should do is allow for a married priesthood with celibacy as an option. Jesus Christ made no rule requiring celibacy and Paul did not require it but preferred it.Where in the scripture is it shown to be a requirement for the priesthood.For over 1,000 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus celibacy was not a requirement. It was instituted because of the “lay investiture Problem” where the married priests were leaving church lands to their offspring. Because of the loss of church property Rome started to require celibacy.It was an economic decision on the part of the church. I must say your lack of a compassionate attitude towards this man strikes me as being almost sinful and certainly not very Christian.