Cardinal says Priests will marry

The Scotsman ^ | 5/26/2005

[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."

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "Where is the scripture about the Christian Priesthood?"

You are off topic, may I recommend a new thread I am sure many of us will join you there. Now if you wish to converse on this thread the subject is Celibacy in the Priesthood.

Re: "Where does it say that this scarificing priesthood must also be celebate(sp)"

Scripture is Holy Writ it is not canon law or church discipline anymore than a police department policy is public law. You seem to be expecting the Bible to conform to your expectations instead the other way around.

I have Scripture passages to support the priesthood but that is going off topic. Start a new thread and we will join you there. Stay on target young Luke.

[biblewonk]

You're really losing it aren't you? I hope that you will read your bible and see what the actually words say and trust that God wrote it for you and not for someone to spoon feed to you.

[Sloth]

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?); -- I Timothy 3:2-5

[biblewonk]

you trespassed on matters Catholic

ROTFLMAO

[Mark in the Old South]

Pot calling the kettle black? You still haven't addressed Matthew 19:12. Stay on topic or start a new thread.

[biblewonk]

Strange, you never posted anything from Scripture to show us that we should expect Scripture to describe and teach us every iota of Christian practice.

There are iota's and there are entire priesthoods. There is quite a difference between the two. If you were to study the priesthood as described in the OT and then see it's fulfullment in Christ, you would have some concern about priesthoods are and are not. The Priesthood is a wonderful institution when it is from God.

Heb 4:14 14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Heb 5: 1 For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2He can have compassion on those who are ignorant and going astray, since he himself is also subject to weakness. 3Because of this he is required as for the people, so also for himself, to offer sacrifices for sins. 4And no man takes this honor to himself, but he who is called by God, just as Aaron was.

[biblewonk]

I have Scripture passages to support the priesthood but that is going off topic.

That's interesting. I think you don't have Scripture that defines and declares a Christian Priesthood other than what I've mentioned exists.

[Mark in the Old South]

You are still off topic. The subject is celibacy in the priesthood. Am I getting through at all on this little matter? I responded to a request you made about Biblical support for celibacy, which WAS on topic. You have never addressed it. That is very telling about your feelings about your position of strength. I am starting to wonder if the reason you are so desperate to change the subject of the thread might be because you can not address the verse and you don't want anyone to notice.

Alas I have noticed. You asked the question on celibacy first. I responded and you have been running away from it ever since. I thank you for giving me the opportunity of pointing this out again.

If you continue to stray off topic and fail to respond to the answer to your question I will be forced to point it out again for all our readers.

Care to try again? Just in case you missed it the passage was Matthew 19:12

For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

Care to guess who said it?

[biblewonk]

What question, you mean "who said it"? Please get serious.

[Mark in the Old South]

Well that will be a good start. Since you seem determined to avoid the passage and its' meaning to the topic we can start with that. If it makes you more comfortable. I figure once you get your toe in the water you will be more forthcoming. I wouldn't want to push you too hard, it has been like pulling teeth as it is.

[annalex]

At this point I have given you enough scriptural and historical evidence on the Eucharist and the priesthood, and I explained the Catholic teachings on these. I am familiar with the Protestant views and find them non-scriptural, ahistorical, and barely recongizable as Christian. Feel free to open a thread decicated to this matter if you still have questions.

[ninenot]

"Can the celibate homosexual be a priest?"

Under Vat guidelines issued 1961, the answer is no.

But as you know, there are plenty of homos who are now Ordained. Some are celibate, others are not.

In either case, they ARE ordained.

[BlackElk]

There is no need for Catholics to rely on worshipping their own opinions (themselves) which is what the "reformed" do. You are wrong or you would not be "reformed." We love you anyway but not your techniques and not your errors.

There is nothing to argue about. My wife and both of my grandfathers understood this and converted to Catholicism from Presbyterianism, Presbyterianism and Anglicanism, respectively. My mother's German female ancestors may well have required German Lutheran men to convert to Catholicism as a condition of marriage. It is hard to tell at this stage so many years later. Whether born or converted, they died Catholic.

This is a conservative forum. All too much energy and effort here is wasted on evangelization efforts which divide us rather than ideological/political discussion which can unite us in politics if not in religious profession.

We have not earned the right to squabble in public for the entertainment of our mutual non-believing enemies. In religion, we agree on about 95% which is a sufficient basis for political alliance. The day will not dawn when I will agree with you on your refusal to accept Catholicism. The day will probably not dawn when you will enter into the Catholic Faith. That's cool,if not wise. God gave you free will. Join with Catholics on resistance to abortion, to lavender "marriage" and on other matters where we agree. Worship as you see fit and so will we.

Beyond that, trust me, whatever "testimonies" you may be hearing at fundamentalist get togethers, no well-catechized Catholic will ever abandon the Catholic Faith. The quality of the converts TO Catholicism far exceeds the quality of those who defect to feel good. We continue to be the statistical Big Dog in Christianity and we are not likely to hand that status to any of the tens thousands of "Its all about ME and what I think Scriptures mean caucuses or denominations who are spiritual generations and leagues removed from the one true Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter.

BTW, I don't pose as a Scriptural scholar in any event. The Vatican has more than enough of those to satisfy me. If I fail to overcome your arguments, you win nothing. You will never overcome the Teaching Magisterium. That is a guarantee on the Highest Authority. What you like about Catholics willing to discuss Scripture with you is that they assist you thereby, however unintentionally, to "evangelize" against the Roman Catholic Church. I cannot adequately express in words how very little interest adequately catechized Catholics have in being "evangelized" by those in error and self-devised error at that.

Two WWII Japanese soldiers who had never surrenderd were found on Mindanao this week. They are each nearing 90 years of age. When they are convinced that Imperial Japan was REALLY defeated by the US, they will weep as they accept that defeat. As probable practitioners of Shinto, they are religiously wrong but they are the kind of men I want as allies in worldly struggle. They are better men than most of us, though in manifest error. I feel that way about many of the "reformed" including you. You guys are stubborn to a fault in spite of the historical evidence of your errors. I admire that in an adversary and even more so do I admire that in an ally on worldly matters.

Jesus Christ founded and guaranteed the Catholic Church to the end of time. He did not become Flesh, was not born, did not suffer, did not die, resurrect, ascend to heaven, send the Paraclete, etc., so that a renegade Augustinian priest with about fifteen (or was it 95?) anti-Catholic agendas could come along and "reform" or found (as one may prefer) the Church of Jesus Christ after a hiatus of nearly 1500 years during which Christians were deprived of legitimacy or even salvation somehow because Herr and Frau Luther had not yet given birth to little Martin.

That sort of idea does not mean that you guys are bad allies in the battle for the babies and for marriage, for two examples. I dare say that we Catholics are not bad allies of yours on such issues despite our adherence to Jesus Christ and his Church and our rejection of Luther and his successors.

Have you ever considered that we hear in the mantra "Where is that found in Scripture?" the sin of Thomas who refused to believe until he inserted his finger in Christ's wrists and his hand in Christ's side? "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed!" is the answer in both cases. Emulate Thomas (after the fact) and believe. Or not, as God gave you the choice. This beats argument by Scriptural "gotcha."

[BlackElk]

If it were not for the Roman Catholic Church, you would not have a Bible to be in error in regard to. You operate under the obvious delusion that the ability to read and the possession of the Bible will suffice for you to enjoy the fullness of Christianity. It will not. The Church that preserved for you and gave you the Bible knows that far better than you.

That I disagree with you or with some self-appointed religious authority with whom you may agree (Jack Chick? Jimmy Swaggert? Whomever) and agree with the authorities of Jesus Christ's own Church whom He left with the keys and in charge of those who presume to interpret Scripture as they see fit without His authority must be soooooo offensive to you in that I reject your self-appointed authority. If the Bible were so obvious in meaning, then there would not be tens of thousands of squabbling "reformed" denominations (nowadays many of which simply claim to be "Christian" to avoid the obvious argument) each of which cherishes its own idiosyncratic imaginings as to Scriptural meaning as the one TRUE interpretation. Did Bishop Usher have it right that the World was created in six actual 24-hour-days in spite of the myriad of meanings of the Hebrew word (whose breathings are long lost along with the literal meaning they conveyed) used for "days" in Scriptural translation? Could be but then we have to believe that God caused the creation of a fraudulent and misleading archaeological record of dead dinosaurs which seems unlikely.

Can you pinpoint the hour and minute on a specific Thursday afternoon or whatever when it all began (as the soi-disant Bishop Usher claimed to be able to do by keeping his nose or whatever to those Scriptural and mathematical grindstones? Etc., etc. That is why God invented the papacy and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to guarantee authoritative teaching as to Scripture.

Pope St. Pius X (1907) in Pascendi Domenici Gregis and Lamentabile Sane taught with ACTUAL authority that the Scriptures are, cover-to-cover, word-for-word, the inerrant word of God. He, not you, had the authority to teach that. He, not you, had the authority to teach the meaning of cripture as did Leo XIII before him and several after him, notable Benedict XV (no hero on other grounds), Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI and hundreds of popes starting with Peter and continuing to Leo XIII as well. They and not Schmidlap the Insignificant will authoritatively teach (not spoon feed) the Faithful the meaning of Scripture, whether they disagree with you or not. Their teachings will be remembered as yours will not.

If what I have supposedly lost is some delusion that I would have the authority to interpret Scripture, I never had such a presumption. See also #213.

Also, "reformed" preachiness and churchladiness brings out the worst in adequately catechized Roman Catholics.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't know much about Cardinal Keith O'Brien's particular paper trail--- but I do know that he'll never get in trouble for discussing the calling of celibate vs married men to the priesthood.

That's because this particular topic is something faithful Catholics are free to debate.

Unlike all the other "disputed questions" which are really NOT open to dispute (women priests, contraception, sterilization, abortion, homoseuality, infanticide, euthanasia, etc.) priestly celibacy is NOT one of those unchanging things.

Clerical celibacy is a valuable part of the spiritual patrimony of the West. It has been practiced virtuously by hundreds of thousands, or maybe even millions of priests over the past 1000 years. But it is not an INTRINSIC feature of priesthood per se. There have always been married priests in the Church, there are now, and there always will be.

Without at all putting down the married priests in the Easten Church, I myself think that a celibate priesthood is a good thing and I would like to see the practice maintained and strengthened.

However, we do have to be able to make a distinction between things that, while holy and good, are of human custom or judgment(e.g. the celibate priesthood, the liturgical calendar, patron saints, the office of Cardinal, the Roman Curia, Gregorian chant, the age at which one receives First Communion and Confirmation, etc. etc.) and the things which are of divine or apostolic origin.

Otherwise you get thrown for a loop when something (changeable) gets changed, and you blanch and cudgel your brains and wail "That's it! Dagnabbit! I'm not goin' to church anymore..."

Distinguish between doctrine and custom. It'll save you a lot of grief.

[biblewonk]

Matthew 19
Marriage and Divorce

Christ's Teaching on Divorce
(A) 1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.
3The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"

4And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made[a] them at the beginning "made them male and female,'[b] 5and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?[c] 6So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

7They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"

8He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[d] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

10His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry."



Jesus Teaches on Celibacy
11But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."


Jesus Blesses Little Children
(B) 13Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. 14But Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." 15And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.


Jesus Counsels the Rich Young Ruler
(C) 16Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good[e] Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"
17So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good?[f] No one is good but One, that is, God.[g] But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

18He said to Him, "Which ones?"

Jesus said, ""You shall not murder,' "You shall not commit adultery,' "You shall not steal,' "You shall not bear false witness,' 19"Honor your father and your mother,'[h] and, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."'[i]

20The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept from my youth.[j] What do I still lack?"

21Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.



With God All Things Are Possible
(D) 23Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
25When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"

26But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

27Then Peter answered and said to Him, "See, we have left all and followed You. Therefore what shall we have?"

28So Jesus said to them, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[k] or children or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and the last first.

Jesus Said it and He said it primarily to those who can "accept it". I just simply can not find the priesthood anywhere in this whole chapter.

[biblewonk]

At this point I have given you enough scriptural and historical evidence on the Eucharist and the priesthood

Actually you only gave historical. I was hoping for something scriptural but I've read the bible enough times to really thing that there was anything there. So I'll say it again, I just don't see anything scriptural about a priesthood in Christendom with or without sex. I do see plenty of sex in the real priesthood which started with Aaron, infact that priesthood depended entirely upon sex and wives.

[cyborg]

bump to all your posts

[annalex]

I gave you a number of New Testament references to priests in relation to the laity and to the bishops in #185. You ignored them.

Mark in the Old South gave you a scriptural reference to celibate life praised by Jesus. Your response was to point out that celibacy is voluntary. Duh.

When a scriptural reference is given you, you ignore it and change the subject. This is a behavior of a troll. Now, as many have recommended, if you have general questions about Christianity, find or start an appropriate thread and we will be happy to educate you -- if you are willing to learn. On this thread, I will stick to its topic form now on. The detour is over.