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."
Your source for that information?
thanks!
I don't think this will happen.
US Catholics, in every survey taken in the last fifteen years, support the ordination of married men by 60-70%.
That's a hoary old Protestant standard. I know I read it at least 30 years ago.
Doesn't make much sense though. I seem to recall that in eras of high corruption, unmarried churchmen had no qualms about leaving property and church office to their illegitimate sons.
I agree. He should be removed as a Cardinal, for violating his promise. Is there a procedure for that, short of excommunication?
That just doesn't make any sense.
It's the only place I've seen the term use in this context and your post caught me at that point!
I'm VERY curious...
"The Cardinal has angered conservative Catholics in the past with his acceptance of gay priests, as long as they remained celibate."
This Cardinal should be excommunicated. It's the ONLY proper thing to do. He is part of the rot within the Church.
I thought Peter was married.
There are seven rites in the Catholic Church: Latin, Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean. As far as I know only one does not allow married priests. There have always been married Catholic priests. I fail to see what the big deal is...
Never that I know of. The Catholic Church in the West did for a while ordain already-married men, but:
1. Even when common, this practice was never considered normative.
2. There's much evidence that after ordination married clergy lived with their spouses as brother and sister, forgoing sexual relations.
3. The "change" that you mention in the early part of the second millennium was merely the legal codification of a near-universal (in the West) discipline of celibacy that had already been recognised as normative for centuries.
Biblehack displays his/her/its ignorance of Scripture, yet again.
The problem is not with pedophile priests, it is with homosexual priests, and allowing priests to marry won't change that. NOT allowing homosexuals into the priesthood is the only thing that will.
Allowing priests to marry wouldn't keep pedophiles out, either. Pedophiles can be married, and most are. They seek out employment or situations that allow them access to young children that few would question. Being married gives them 'cover' to do their dirty work.
So we are now supposed to take public surveys to determine what we are to believe and how to adapt the Church to new norms and new practices?
For example, should multiple divorces now be accepted? Gee, the surveys would suggest... Just what are you suggesting here?
My response was targeted to another poster, who said that "US Catholics don't know about married priests in Eastern Rites or the Anglican Dispensation."
If that's true, surveys indicate it doesn't matter.
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.