Posted on 04/10/2005 8:33:55 AM PDT by sionnsar
FOUR in 10 Catholic priests in Scotland believe that they should be allowed to marry — and 23% of them say the church should relax its ban on contraception and the ordination of homosexual clergy.
Following the death of Pope John Paul II last weekend, a Sunday Times survey has revealed widespread support for a more liberal line to be taken by his successor.
The church’s position on celibacy gained the highest level of support for change. Asked if the next pope should allow priests to marry, 41% said he should.
In 2002, before he became a cardinal, Keith O’Brien, the leader of the Catholic church in Scotland, shocked traditionalists when he said that he “would have no problems with celibacy withering away”.
Many priests see no theological reason why they should not marry and have children. “It is only a church law and church law can be changed,” said Father Brian Lamb of St Patrick’s chapel in Shotts, Lanarkshire.
Father Dominic Quinn, of St Kevin’s chapel in Bargeddie, near Glasgow, said: “In Britain we have had some married Anglican clergy who have become priests and the church law of celibacy has not been applied to them, so it is not seen as a divine institution. The way the church has used this has changed throughout history.”
A change in the position on contraception, an issue that has done much to damage the credibility of the church during the reign of John Paul, was supported by 23% of the priests.
John Paul believed all contraception was “intrinsically evil” and that the use of condoms to help to prevent the spread of HIV was “morally illicit”.
Among the other findings of the survey, 20% of priests said they would support the ordination of women priests and 26% favoured allowing openly gay men to be priests — but only if they remain celibate.
Father Joe Mills, from St Mary’s chapel in Duntocher, said: “There could be an argument for women priests and, as for homosexuals, they make the same vows as heterosexual priests, so why not ordain them?” Sister Christine Schenk, of the US-based Catholic lobby group FutureChurch, which is pushing to make celibacy optional and to have women ordained as deacons, said the church was facing a shortage of priests. The worldwide Catholic population rose by 52% to 1.1 billion between 1973 and 2002, but the number of priests remained static at 405,000, she said.
“Our concern, and the concern of priests, was not that celibacy was not a good way of life and many were very happy, it was overwhelmingly about us not being able to keep having mass and the sacraments available to Catholic people if we don’t attract more priests.”
Jan Barlow, chief executive of Brook Advisory Centres, the sexual health charity for young people, said: “A relaxation of the Catholic church’s position on contraception would help more people to make informed choices about their sexual health, prevent unplanned pregnancies and protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections.”
Last month James Bell became the first married priest to be ordained in Scotland. A former Scottish Episcopal minister, he converted to Catholicism and subsequently became a priest. oToday the Church of Scotland publishes a report calling for a “pragmatic” response to tackle the growing Aids crisis around the world.
The report calls on all Christians to face up to the issue more directly. It says: “Unless reticence is rapidly replaced with pragmatic and forward-looking approaches, HIV will spread more extensively in many countries which, until now, have escaped with only minor epidemics.”
Additional reporting: Holly Marney, Rory Gallivan
Logical inconsistencies in semi-jest don't bother me. If they bother YOU, then you ought to be a member of the Thought Police. There's plenty of work available at EEOC, for example.
Me neither, as long as there's an element of jest
If they bother YOU, then you ought to be a member of the Thought Police. There's plenty of work available at EEOC, for example.
As a white male heterosexual I could never get a job at the EEOC so it's a moot point!
I have an alternative theory (tongue in cheek) that those who think they are descended from monkeys appear to be right but the rest of us are descended from Adam and Eve just as the Good Book says.
And the sun burst through the clouds and sent the terrified schizzies back into the woodwork where they may hide.
I will no longer respond to you for I refuse to be an accessory by provocation.
GG and Murph: I am a Roman Catholic and NOT a schismatic and I have the right to repeat the truths proclaimed by John Paul II in regard to excommunicating the disobedient bishop/dervishes of Marcel's little cult and declaring it a schism. When the schismatics post as though they are Catholic which they are not, it is truth and not calumny to pin the horns on the schizzies. You are defined by your acts and not by your self-serving imagined self-descriptions.
I will no longer respond to you for I refuse to be an accessory by provocation.
The self-description of schismatics as "Catholic" is a calumny against Holy Mother the Church. See JP II: Ecclesia Dei.
If the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella had a RTKBA, few of the miscreants would have reached Torquemada's inquiry to be condemned. The answer to your question is a resounding NO!
St. Torquemada, pray for us!
You are assuming that he is in heaven. That's a stretch.
Yes, they would have resisted the roundup, and many of them would have LIVED.
Tell me, where in the Bible does Jesus authorize the murder of people who disagree with you? Nowhere. Church tradition, on the other hand, regards a sadistic inquisitor as a "Saint". And that's the best argument for Sola Scriptura that I've ever heard. You're convincing me all the more to never set foot in the RC church again.
Unlike Ninenot, your aggressiveness does not appear to be humorous. And that's rather chilling.
BTW, the real Black Elk was a Sioux shaman turned Catholic convert, who saw his people massacred. How do you think he'd feel about your pro-Torquemada position?
ping to post 110.... see what I'm talking about?
Thank you so much for that reference! I am going to tell him the next time he instant messages me. That will set him back! If it doesn't, your second recommendation will! ;)
Insofar as you have left the Church, your assessment of TT's final placement is, well,
Let's put it this way. I wouldn't take your bet to Vegas.
Yes, I see we have stirred up a nest of fanatics. It does not appear that there could ever be a unified Christian church so long as such people are around, and it is also a little scary to think about the type of government we would have if they gained control. Those who are so certain that they are right on such matters feel the need to force it on others. Islamists are the same way.
That said, I do think that the inquisition is a little more understandable when it is not islamic apologists writing about it. The Spanish had endured 700 years of Islamic occupation, and it was not the golden age that Islamofascists try to portray it as. As we have seen, having any Muslims in your midst is a dangerous thing, and in a premodern age, where communications and governmental means of control were not as advanced, it would make some sense to simply remove them from your midst. Where the Spanish went wrong was in the use of torture and when they went after Jews, too, who had not earned the wrath that they received.
But to a catholic fanatic, to repeat historical facts and draw my own conclusions that contradict the fact that the inerrant church has decreed that this torturer is a saint, would make me a heretic or a blasphemer or something like that, and perhaps subject to being burned at the stake myself. Luckily the inquisitors have long since left power, even if their fans still post on internet message boards.
It's already happened, and it was horrifying. Ever heard of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre?
Defiant: Those who are so certain that they are right on such matters feel the need to force it on others.
I disagree. Except regarding issues where a 3rd party is harmed (eg, abortion), or where society at large is damaged (eg, porn), I think that people who try to force their views on others are generally driven by UNcertainty. They can never rest til everyone agrees with them; what they don't realize is that even universal agreement won't silence the inner doubts they struggle with.
I think that it is precisely because they AREN'T so certain, that they are so hostile and defensive. They almost remind me of radical homosexuals who flip out any time somebody quotes the Bible. These guys, too, began to flip out when I started quoting the Bible -- is there a pattern here?
Oh, and notice their reactions when I called them on the carpet re: their morally offensive "Torquemada" taglines. Since Torquemada murdered a lot of Jews, too, maybe I should ping some Jewish freepers over here to discuss the matter?
Mark in the Old South, by contrast, apparently *really believes* in the Catholic faith, and is capable of discussing it without getting mean-spirited. He puts certain others to shame.
Ummmnhhh..the appellation "saint" applied to Tomas deTorquemada is an inside joke. He's not YET a saint.
So hold your fire. As to the record, perhaps you should Google up a couple of decent sources and determine precisely: 1) Torquemada's scope/sequence/authorizations; and then 2) how he fulfilled the above.
DennisW and I get along just fine, and he's seen the tagline plenty.
See, DennisW actually understands humor, unlike some others on FR. When you get off your High Huguenot Horsie, you might actually develop a sense of humor, too.
in the meantime, be sure to check out job postings with the Gummint. They LOVE sensitive types like you.
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.