Posted on 05/25/2005 10:35:49 PM PDT by sinkspur
THE leader of Scotland's Catholics has risked reigniting a row over married priests by predicting the Vatican will eventually relent and allow the practice.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, said the success of married deacons in the church means the change is likely.
The church leader has upset traditional Catholics in the past with his views on celibacy, homosexuality and the priesthood.
His latest comments were made in an interview with the Catholic Times, which will be published on Sunday,
Asked if he believed married priests will become a reality, he said: "Having seen something of the apostolate of married deacons, I can foresee the day when there will be married priests."
The Cardinal has angered conservative Catholics in the past with his acceptance of gay priests, as long as they remained celibate.
However, since being elevated to the College of Cardinals he has espoused views more in line with Vatican teachings. Cardinal O'Brien's latest comments drew criticism from the right-wing Catholic Truth movement.
A spokesman for the group said: "He is trying to say that he is not necessarily personally in favour of this but we can debate it. It's a sleekit way of trying to have his cake and eat it."
However, a poll of 80 Catholic priests in Scotland conducted only last month suggested 40 per cent believed they should be allowed to marry, but the issue remains thorny to many conservative Catholics.
Cardinal O'Brien gained a reputation as a liberal after he said in 2002, before he became a cardinal, that he saw no end to theological argument against celibacy within the priesthood.
A day later he issued a joint statement with Mario Conti, the archbishop of Glasgow, in which the pair said: "While no-one would suggest clerical celibacy is an unchangeable discipline, we believe it has an enormous value."
The following year he risked angering conservatives again when he broached the subject of married priests.
He said in a thanksgiving mass that the church should have "at every level" a discussion about clerical celibacy.
He said the argument for married priests was supported by the case of married Anglican priests who have converted to Catholicism and been allowed to continue their ministries.
However, at the ecclesiastical senate in Rome in October 2003, he made a statement at the end of the Nicene Creed in which he affirmed support of the church's teachings on celibacy, contraception and homosexuality.
It was claimed at the time, but denied, that the added words were said under pressure from the Vatican.
Since then the Cardinal has been careful not to speak out on any of the issues that caused so much controversy.
A spokesman for the Church said today that the Cardinal's comments were not incompatible with his profession of faith in 2003.
He said: "It is a neutral comment on the issue, it is neither a ringing endorsement of the concept, neither is it an outright denunciation."
With the Novus Ordo anything can go. You can say anything you want in the way of liberal doctrine and theology-but heaven forbid if you want to perform a TLM-banned for life
Married priests? That along with female ordination, homosexuality and contraception will be the next dominos to fall in the New Church until a Holy Pope or Our Lord himself intervenes.
We can only keep the faith alive and adhere to tradition as Our Lord, the pre Vatican II church, and scripture dictates to save us and our children from Purgatory or worse yet Hell.
A little off topic, but one change I've noted already, and think we'll see more of, is that if any church wants to offer the Tridentine mass, I don't think anyone is going to have the nerve to say anything about it. I would expect it to make a comeback in a big way because I think people are hungry for the cool smoothness of the Gregorian Chant. Look at the way the CDs sell. Put that in a worship context and it is Holy Fire!
And, IMO, this is how it should be. There should be a place for the Novus Ordum, mass in the local language, and there should be a place for preserving the tradition. Why exclude either?
But regarding this Cardinal O'brien, he sounds like one of the Episcoswishes here who don't see that they are swimming against the tide of history that is about to sweep them away.
It's eerie allright. I'm joining the Catholic church, and earlier I confessed that the only church I've ever been a part of, the Episcopal Church, is a False Church. How far I've come since April 3, 2005. Oh, St. John Paul, Pray for Us. (Can I say that? I'm quite sure he's still stirring the pot.)
No he wouldn't have because there is no such thing as a legitimate priest in the Christian Church, we are all priests.
No it's not the only way This is a very serious matter that WILL be resolved, regardless of any action or non-action taken by Father Schumacher.
Here's one small initial step toward what will be an inevitable resolution:
Q:Sinkspur, are you an active, permanent deacon in the Catholic Church as you have stated numerous times on this forum?
Very simple question. "Yes" or "no" will suffice.
Impersonating clergy was punishable by death under levitcal law. Many people today have been arrested for it. In any case, those who impersonate clergy are precluded from ever becoming a priest in the Catholic Church without a dispensation... which is highly unlikely.
bump
Interesting. A "bible wonk" who doesn't know the bible.
Show me from the bible where there is a priesthood within the Christian other than the "priest hood of believers" or Jesus being our high priest.
I'm wondering what exactly a "celibate homosexual" might be. Is this something like "government intelligence"?
"No he wouldn't have because there is no such thing as a legitimate priest in the Christian Church, we are all priests."
Then why was there no group of Christians who believed that until the XVIth century?
Can you name one of the Fathers, east or west, who rejected the sacrificng priesthood?
You are absolutley right. There is no such thing as a legitimate priest in the Protestant Christian church.
That's absurd.
The point is, priestly celibacy is not "forbidding people to marry" because people can, and most should marry, according to the Church. Even priests are not forbidden to marry, -- they can leave the Holy Orders and then marry.
Oops, 113 was for you.
The points are: There is no such thing as priestly anything in Christianity except for the exceptions mentioned, and forbidding doesn't mean under penalty of death but only as a "church" rule.
If you keep repeating it and repeating it and repeating it...it still won't be true.
It's always been true.
Claiming to be an ordained active member of the clergy --when one has been instructed that to do so is a violation of Canon Law-- IS a serious canonical crime.
But we must again stress that NO ONE cares about or desires to know the identity of any FReeper presenting themselves in such a fashion.
However, the Catholics have a right to know, and his diocese has a duty to inform them if they are aware of this canonical violation, that someone publicly claiming to be an active ordained clergy member is forbidden to do so, and is, in fact, nothing more than an AmChurch Novus Ordo lay person with no authority in any diocese whatsoever to claim otherwise.
Does that qualify as a personal attack? Is it off topic?
I can always take off on topics that you as well as I know I am refraining from.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.