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."
God gave us the Old Testament by way of Israel. God used the RCC to canonize the Bible. God spoke to Balaam by way of a donkey.
God uses whomever and whatever pleases Him. The mere fact that they are used by Him does not endow them with any justification or right to boast.
Sorry I wasn't clearer about it earlier.
Jesus Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church.
Good question. I don't think it was resolved, unless some conclusion can be drawn from sinky's silence.
Of course. I didn't say or imply otherwise. The point is, you're just trying to impress them. From what I've seen, it's working. You and they are feeding your flesh. Likewise, I've also been guilty of letting mine get the better of me.
This thread is about the misbehavior of a Roman Catholic cardinal in Scotland and, in case I neglected to say so, therefore none of your anti-Catholic bidness.
Oh, I was under the impression this thread was a discussion of (among other things) what is or is not any of my business, and/or where I am (not) allowed to post. At least, it sure seems that's what you've been posting about.
Oh, and MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS which I am likely to continue posting until you take the hint and get some manners.
Manners? Precisely how am I not minding my own business? Am I not allowed to reply to those (including yourself) who post TO me?
Because, as I recall, I made exactly THREE posts in this thread where it was not a case of my replying to someone who posted to me, #225 (complimenting a friend), #227 (countering the "if it weren't for the RCC" line), and #236 (commenting on your assertion that there can be such a thing as an "uninvited trespass" on this public forum). Anyone with even the slightest amount of objectivity can see how every one of those subjects was either personal enough or broad enough to have been MY business.
After those three, all of my other posts have been replies to posts addressed TO me, and most if not all of those have been to reply to your incessant and ridiculous demands to "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS."
Thus, I trust you can see the facts show that I have been minding my own business throughout my participation on this thread.
Well yes, as I've said all along, we are all priests. But never once does the bible talk about a Priesthood as the Catholics have established. You have made a priesthood within a priesthood. Surely you knew this was what I was talking about since I've said it about 10 times.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
As long as your friends continue to engage me in conversation, I'll probably hang around.
That's why the layer is called presbuteros and not hiereus in the Greek, presbyter and not sacerdos in the Latin, and priest and not...priest...in the English. You see where the problem is?
The only layers I see are Elders/bishops then everyone else and each and everyone at both layers is a "royal priest". But I don't see an additional layer of priests at all, as I've stated.
Well, hold it...
We are called to witness our Christian faith to apostates and unbelievers. It is indeed inconvenient to deal with obnoxious posters who do not come here to learn, but to disrupt. At the same time, one clear answer should be given to clear questions they pose, even if they themselves have no intention to comprehend or even acknowledge the answer. Often what they ask on the thread, many readers ask inwardly, and for their benefit we should respond.
There is also a tactic used by anti-Catholics, and generally by those who do not have the intellectual upper hand in a dispute. That tactic is to create grounds for a complaint that the Catholics (in this case) want to stick to themselves and shun debate. Let us not play into their hands.
Yes they were very special. So special that there are 12 foundations in the New Jerusalem with their names on them. So special that they have almost nothing to do with the conversation about the Catholic Priesthood.
By the way, regarding my last post, it is interesting to note that there is no mention of any popes or of the seat of pope or the seat if vicar of Christ there in Revelation. The 12 foundations are the 12 apostles only. It's really as if it were just the 12 with no successors isn't it? Actually there is no mention of any successors anywhere in the bible only a verse about a rock which is more than just a little arguably the profession and not the person. But I'm drifting off topic.
TEXTBOOK projection case.
Silence indeed. I suppose we can't infer guilt from that alone, but if someone accused me of impersonating a member of the clergy, I sure would answer the charge.
Where did this come from? All I said about Israel ("Jews" if you insist) is that (1) God used Israel for His good purpose and (2) Israel is an enemy of the gospel (that's from the Bible).
(Now he tries to label me an anti-Semite. It gets sillier with each passing hour.)
That case is good enough for the COVER of the textbook. ;O)
I know you'd like to think so.
Well, if it'll make you feel any better, I don't think you're an anti-Semite; I just think you're a fool.
Have fun reading this thread.