Skip to comments.Cardinal says Priests will marry
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."
I thought I pointed out that Elders/Bishops are not in any way priests. I pointed it out to someone. That is still the case. That accounts for your references to Timothy and Titus.
You did not point it out to me. Bishops ordain and defrock priests as is clear from Titus and Timothy, and priests effect sacraments, as is clear form James. Also, bishops come from the ranks of priests and can effect sacraments. Where do you think bishops come from?
How nasty of you. I suspect you are getting frustrated because the bible doesn't say what you wish it said about priests. I knew that going into this and now I hope that you can see that too, although, I'd never expect to see an RC admit that publicly. Let us all conclude that the bible does not in any way define the position of priest in the Church.
Titus and Timothy made no mention of defrocking priests at all. James 5 14 and 15 says absolutely nothing about priests either. You are so accustomed to seeing the word confession and relating that to the RC priesthood you can't seem to see that there is no mention of a priesthood there in James.
You're casting pearls, brother.
But I'm not stooping to name calling. So I got that going for me.
If it were not for Israel, you would not have an Old Testament. Israel is an "enemy of the gospel" (Rom. 11:28).
17 Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.This is ordainment of priests in Titus 1:
18 For the scripture saith: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn: and, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
19 Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses.
20 Them that sin reprove before all that the rest also may have fear.
5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:This is the priests needed to perform the annointing of the sick in James 5:
14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.
Any Catholic who knows his faith will admit to you that the scripture alone does not inform our faith or regulate our liturgical practice. I give your scriptural references where they exist; some aspects of Christian practice indeed are not to be found in the scripture. The pillar and the foundation of truth is the Church, not the scripture (and you can look that up).
The uninvited trespass. Laugh as you like.
'Wonk, didn't you know? This is the Catholic forum on Free Republic.
What's your frequency, Kenneth?
1 Timothy 5:22 "... Keep thyself chaste".
You're right about that. I don't think Cardinal Whatsizname or deacon Whatsizname are wise or prudent or fair or humble in pushing their opinions in a way that gives scandal.
It's particularly unfair to give the impression that "someday soon" the church is going to be recruiting married men to the priesthood, which could have the effect of (1) dismaying the men who, sometimes with great inner struggle, have already vowed themselves to celibacy, and (2) wrongly encouraging men who actually have a priestly vocation to get married now, on the assumption that the Church is going to change and they'll be able to be priests sometime in the future, anyway.
It's a bad business. But it's not heresy. That was my point.
BTW, I think the Church was very unwise to drop the abstinence from meat-eating on Fridays. It was a tiny bit of self-denial which was good for all of us; and it gave us a kind of group identity thing which reminded us who we were.
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.