Posted on 05/07/2015 8:05:30 AM PDT by marshmallow
The possibility of married Roman Catholic priests was part of a candid and revealing conversation with Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich.
CBS 2 Chief Correspondent Jay Levine sat down with Archbishop Cupich, who said that is wouldn’t surprise him, though not right away.
The Archbishop reminded us that Pope has already told the worldwide bishops conferences to consider it and report back.
“I think that what the pope was saying is that he wants to make sure that whatever you do it creates unity within your own churches, your own country,” Cupich said. “There’s no reason for any decision to be taken that is going to divide the church. The first mark of the church is unity and I think that is why the Pope said ‘You all need to get together first and talk about this to see what impact this will have on your church, good or ill.”
Asked if he believes he will see married ordained Catholic priests in his lifetime, Cupich said, “Predictions are hard to make but I would say with the way the Holy Spirit works in the church, I’m not going to be surprised by anything.”
(Excerpt) Read more at chicago.cbslocal.com ...
Cupich isn’t a heretic here; married priests are a “discipline,” not a “dogma.” But they certainly are NOT what the Pope meant when he signaled greater autonomy of the local churches.
I think the reason for stopping marriage was to protect church assets from divorce. I could be VERY wrong so don’t attack lol
The general and non-specific “I wouldn’t be surprised by anything” turns into that headline?
Other possible headlines based on that quote:
“Archbishop wouldn’t be surprised if Obama is gay”
“Archbishop wouldn’t be surprised if Sharpton indicted for tax fraud”, etc.
Given there is no biblical prohibition against married clergy (to the contrary) and given that the Apostle Peter was married, I see no problem with allowing priests to marry. Yet, I also have no problem if the Catholic Church wants to maintain the current policy.
I have been saying this for a while.
The compulsory clerical celibacy policy is something which needs to be reviewed and discussed. The policy does not come from the Bible. It was implemented by the Church in the Middle Ages for reasons which have nothing to do with the Bible. Priests in the Bible were married men as were priests and bishops and even some popes in the early Church history. Celibacy is not considered a dogma or a doctrine of the Church. It is considered a discipline and it is subject to change.
But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided.
With marriage comes children, and I can tell you from experience that I do not have the time for thoughtful reflection, patience, and charity that the unmarried priests have. Especially in this day-and-age, theirs is an all consuming profession.
Do we have another Bernardin here?
Ah...and things would be so much better with Dating Priests and Divorced Priests....
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach.”
1 Timothy 3:2
For more than a century, married Anglican/Episcopal priests who swim the Tiber are allowed to remain married, and they do not have to be celibate while married. Many continue to father children.
The difference is the way things are and the way things should be.
Marriage after ordination would not be permitted. It’s only the ordination of married men that would be under discussion. Dating seminarians, however ...
No.
A married clergy is specifically permitted in the Bible and acceptable to Paul.
People are taking Paul out of context with the passage you cited. In the passage you quoted, Paul is merely stating that if you are single you can devote more time and energy in service to the Faith. Which is obviously true of ANY profession, doctor, lawyer, architect, you name it. In the scripture I quoted, Paul clearly has no issue with a married clergy. Priests were expected to be married in the Bible.
Priests were allowed to marry until they started to leave the church property to their heirs ..
Bingo.
And that is precisely why the current cleric celibacy policies were enacted by the Church during the Middle Ages. Nepotism and simony were big issues facing the Church at that time. Compulsory clerical celibacy was implemented as a response.
then people leaving the Catholic Church won't surprise me.
It would make it harder for the homos to hide out in the seminaries.
My mother is very active in the church here. She said “he’s another Bernardin”.
Simple explanation: Priests don't marry because marriage and family directs their time and attention to worldly affairs, leaving less for God and His flock.
Unhinged FR Calvinist explanation (with spittle): IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!! THOSE PRIESTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE THEIR STUFF AWAY TO THEIR FAMILIES (they can, as always) AND CHURCH PROPERTY STAYS WITH THE CHURCH (uh... shouldn't it?) SO THAT THE MONEY CAN GO TO THE POPE THAT LIVES LIKE A KING!!!*&%$#!! (he doesn't).
*yawn*
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.