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."

[biblewonk]

If you followed any Catholic threads here dealing with the effects of the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesiology, you probably noticed that among the complaints that the traditionalists have is that the new order of Mass diluted the role of the priest. More prayers formerly said by the priest alone are now said by the congregation; Latin (in which the Priest is more likely to be fluent than the congregation) is rarely used; extraordinary ministers of the Holy Communion (who take the Eucharist consecrated by the priest to the congregation to speed up the communion) are used liberally; the communicants don't kneel, often take Communion in their hands rather than letting the priest put it in their mouth; the communion rail is gone; the priest's vestments are simpler. On the other hand, in the new order the priest faces away from the Crucifix and toward the congregation, which has the effect of separating him from the laity. I mention these things to illustrate the brackets between which Catholicism is willing to go in the degree of separation between the priest and the congregation; as you can see, despite the innovations, priesthood is indeed very special.

Thank you for the summary. I see mention of that 2nd vatican thing all the time. I must point out though I know you are tired of hearing it, that this is all RC tradition since my point all along has been that there is no RC type priesthood in the bible nor in Christianity for a the Church/Body of Christ.

Yes the RC defined priesthood is a very important thing to the RC ...um...faith. Hence my continuing complaint. It just shouldn't be so.

[annalex]

there is no other scripture telling us about Peter's popehood

In Mt 16:18 and Jn 1:42 Simon Peter is renamed Rock and in Mt 16:18 te reason for the name is given, to become the foundation of Christ's Church.

In Mt 16:10 Peter alone is given the keys with which to bind and loose things on earth. Christ promises that what Peter legislates on earth will be followed in heaven.

In Jn 21:15-18 Peter alone receives the pastoral duty to feed and guide Christ's sheep.

[annalex]

an ambiguous statement about a rock and another rock.

Please. Where is the other rock? The episode starts with Peter's profession of faith, Christ in return calls him rock, and the foundation of the Church because of his faith, and give him the keys. Your interpretation is extra-scriptural.

[annalex]

In Mt 16:10

Should be Mt 16:19.

[newgeezer]

Baptism ... in an emergency.

This reminds me of my pre-believing days when my wife and I were typical ELCA Lutherans (going through the motions on Sunday mornings). We actually came very close to taking our infant nephew to be baptized (to save his soul, LOL). His atheist parents would have had a cow.

[annalex]

A Catholic priest would not have allowed that. The requirement is that at least one parent should desire the baptism. That is because it is the will of the parent, not of the baby, that presents the child to Christ.

[newgeezer]

not of the baby

I'll add my 'amen' to that. ;)

[sockmonkey]

Regarding
Comment #508 Removed by Moderator

Comment #509 Removed by Moderator

Comment #510 Removed by Moderator

Comment #511 Removed by Moderator

Comment #512 Removed by Moderator

I guess I missed something, eh? I did notice we have some suspended or banned Freepers around here.

Oh, well, gotta go mow the yard. God bless us every one.

[newgeezer]

I guess I missed something, eh?

Until this moment, I was totally oblivious to it. If I had to guess, it's the usual suspect(s) of late.

[newgeezer]

I did notice we have some suspended or banned Freepers around here.

"Around here" as in "in this thread"?

I give up. Who's been suspended or banned?

[newgeezer]

Hey, 'Wonk, check this out when you get back:

http://www.freerepublic.com/~aaabest/
(his posts: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?name=AAABest )

Rumor has it there are many such casualties in the Religion forum lately. I wonder what happened.

[biblewonk]

I'm sure curious as to what kind of comments were removed.