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."
Please show me the verse about Christian men becoming priests.
Perhaps you didn't notice people accusing me of knowing nothing about the bible. Please go find those posts a couple back and splain to them that it isn't in the bible.
That gets it said. Did I just hear a pin drop?
I am sure you know the Bible sufficiently well. It's your methodology of sola scriptura that is foreign to Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and so you tend to (1) discard things not apparent in the Bible and (2) misinterpret what is in the Bible in ways that suit your prejudice, rather than in light of the tradition and the broad context.
The word you are searching for is not present. Ok that's 2 words.
Wow. What an ugly insinuation: anyone who doesn't agree with your own personal interpretation of scripture doesn't read scripture at all.
You're quite the little Napoleon.
"Unlikely" doesn't compare to "Ratzinger will never be Pope."
Isn't that the position of the Catholic Church? Assuming that a priest has homosexual urges but never acts on them, what is the problem?
How positively 'Mother Angelica' of you!
Applause for Colleen's incisive comment on this Cardinal's authority with regard to the Catholic Lay Faithful of Christ's Body.
Because the passage was directly condemning the Gnostics who viewed flesh and matter as corrupt and therefore imposed asceticism and virginity.
They will not marry priests. Unlike the other break away Christian faiths, there is no profit for a family. All the money goes to the church and not priest's salaries.
They take a vow of poverty, so how does a priest have a family while in poverty and what happens in divorces when the wives and children need support and starts taking the Church to court to try and grab assets?
Not realistic at all.
I considered "not present", and chose "not apparent" because among several Catholic views on the matter, there is the so-called material sufficiency view, which holds that the entire Catholic teaching can be seen in the Bible viewed in the informed light. It is not the same as total absence. For example, while there is no verse that establishes celibacy as the ideal condition for a priest, there are verses that establish Christ as the Bridegroom of the Church, and marital fidelity as a commandment, and the Eucharist as a re-presentation of the sacrifice at Calgary. From these it follows that the priest -- one celebrating the Eucharist -- is acting in the stead of Christ, and owes fidelity to the Church in the stead of Christ. Hence celibacy.
Adverse interpretations are possible, and I am sure you can offer them, but the traditional interpretation is also possible, -- and happens to be the correct one.
The other view, -- that the Sacred Tradition and the Magisterial teaching may or may not be present in the scripture, but they may not contradict the scripture -- is also valid. The Cathoic dogma does not point either way. This is why the reference to the scripture is always an exercise profitable for our salvation, but it is not viewed as necessary, -- obedience to the Magisterium is.
It is still a disordered condition of the mind, which renders him incapable of the priestly function.
Re: "What part of celibacy don't these priests understand?"
Oh they understand it. It is just their own WILL that takes priority in their actions.
What is this Anti-Catholic Troll?
Then again, didn't a good percentage of Catholic voters vote for Mr. Kerry in the last election?
Re: "The rule was changed because priests at the time were immensely powerful and wealthy figures, and the Church didn't like the idea that their property would pass on to their sons rather than reverting to Church ownership upon their death."
Gee you are good. I have enough trouble reading the mind of the fella next to me let alone people who have been dead over 1000 years. A source would sure be nice right about now.
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.