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
True, but (a) an illicit sex partner DOES defile a man, and (2) in the old testament there were certain times when men who'd had recent sexual relations, even lawful, were considered "ritually defiled" temporarily and were not to do certain things. Clearly the passage in question is a reference to this.
Ironic. The issue that drove me out of Catholicism was not "Sola Scriptura" but "Contra Scriptura".
Perhaps that is indeed a selective reading of the scriptures. But read them in their whole context, read them in your preferred translation, you'll see that they don't say or imply anything different from what I've said. Yes, for those few who "can accept this saying", celibacy offers more freedom in the service of God -- but nowhere in the scripture does it state that celibacy is a REQUIREMENT for church office. And St. Paul explicitly anticipated married bishops -- with kids. St. Paul also told married couples not to deny each other. Do you deny this?
Until you and others educate yourselves and stop relying on hack "Catholic" theologians like Edward Schillebeeckx, who, among other heresies, denies the Real Presence, to perpetuate a myth, you'd be well advised to avoid flapping your gums via the keyboard. I seriously doubt though that you'll stop behaving like a fool.
Where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise.
An illicit sex partner defiles a woman, too. It takes two, you know.
"A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work. It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" 1 Timothy 3:1-5
"fidelis sermo si quis episcopatum desiderat bonum opus desiderat oportet ergo episcopum inreprehensibilem esse unius uxoris virum sobrium prudentem ornatum hospitalem doctorem non vinolentum non percussorem sed modestum non litigiosum non cupidum suae domui bene praepositum filios habentem subditos cum omni castitate si quis autem domui suae praeesse nescit quomodo ecclesiae Dei diligentiam habebit" 1 Timothy 3:1-5
St. Pauls' instructions to Timothy, as Bishop of Ephesus, in no way is absolute in that only married men should be selected as Bishops, Priests and Deacons. If Timothy were to chose married men for the clerical state then they could only have been married once, no more. As you know, or should know, St. Paul was celibate. Your lack of commentary seems to indicate that you believe that St. Paul himself would have been ineligible to be a Bishop, Priest or Deacon in Ephesus, or anywhere else for that matter, which of course is absurd. It's a frequent mistake that poor students of Scripture and history make.
Oh, great, a reading assignment from someone who took his religion at his mother's knee and couldn't analyze fact from propaganda. I was wrong to compare you to Ratzinger; I think you'd make a better Torquemada. Someone so convinced of his rectitude that others who disagree are clearly loathesome horrid creatures. In another century, you would have tried to have us tied to the rack.
True. But the 144,000 mentioned in Revelation are virgin MEN who by definition are not defiled by women (or, this being California, by men either....ugh.)
My lack of commentary is due to the fact that every time I bring these issues up with Catholics, I'm accused of adding my own interpretation. So I decided to let the Scriptures speak for themselves.
The NAB is a poor text to be using
Okay, fair enough: which do you recommend instead?
especially if you're a Catholic
Ex-Catholic
in a rather feeble attempt to prove your point.
Actually, I think the passages cited prove my point quite well. I do not quote the "married only once" passage to try to imply that bishops *must* be married, but merely to point out that, as far as St. Paul was concerned, a married bishop was PERMISSIBLE.
On another thread a long time ago, a radical defender of Catholicism hinted that executing heretics wasn't such a bad idea. Whereas I, as an Evangelical Protestant, would NEVER suggest or dream of killing or persecuting Catholics -- Catholics such as my mother and all her family, and most of my wife's family.
I find this phenomenon so disturbing that I will repost, here, my comments from several months ago:
Until VERY recently, I had no problem with Catholics. I have Catholic ancestors (Irish) who were persecuted by Protestants as well as Protestant ancestors (Huguenot, Scotch-Irish) who were persecuted by Catholics. I ended up in the Evangelical camp because I read the Bible myself and found numerous variances between Scripture and present Catholic practice, but I respected the Catholic church for their moral stands. For instance, the Catholics were the first ones to raise a ruckus about abortion, before the Evangelicals realized what was going on -- and Catholics deserve credit for this.
I certainly never feared Catholics -- my mom's side of the family is Irish, after all. How could I be afraid of my own mother and cousins? And so I never understood the howling anti-Catholic paranoia and conspiracy theories that one sometimes encounters in the more hardcore segments of Evangelicalism.
In fact, I assumed that both Catholics and Protestants (everywhere but Ulster, at least), have finally figured out that peaceful persuasion and Christian tolerance ("Do unto others...", "Romans 14", etc) is the correct Christian way to handle doctrinal differences -- provided that public morality is upheld, of course. William Penn's noble experiment in religious tolerance, and the First Amendment forbidding a state church, seemed to have worked. Alexis de Tocqueville noted that the America he observed was such a great place, in large part because although Americans differed on our opinions regarding our duties to God himself, we were unified in our opinions regarding our duties to our fellow man. To put it another way, we had a strong Christian public morality that all denoniminations agreed on, and we handled our theological differences by peaceful discussion and persuasion instead of launching "jihads' against heretics as was the case back in Old Europe.
De Tocqueville, a Catholic, thought this was laudable and so do I. In fact, I thought that EVERY Christian, by this point in history, understood that this a better way, and I was perfectly content to work for a shared public morality with people with whom I respectfully disagreed. But in the last year, here at FreeRepublic I have heard Catholics justify or excuse some of the horrible persecutions of the past. Someone actually quoted Aquinas' justification of killing heretics a few months ago. Although he backed off from saying that HE would personally burn me, once gets the feeling that he'd prefer to. It's absolutely chilling. All of the sudden, the wild paranoia of militant, persecutory, conspiratorial, inquisitional Catholicism, that I used to recoil at, now seems to have a grain of truth. I'll never look at Catholicism so trustingly again.
Praise God for the Second Amendment.
It's a shame that this thread, in which all the posters seem to be Christian and fans of the Pope, became a replay of the reformation. John Paul II transcended all of that, and inspired protestants and jews with his love of humanity. There will always be those who try to divide us because this doctrine or that is not to their liking. We have to always rise above that, while staying true to our own beliefs. Cunningham is just staying true to his beliefs, but his aggressive certitude on an issue that is anything but certain (just ask a married pastor such as yourself if he thinks he's violating Jesus' teaching by not being celibate) is not helpful to having a dialogue.
I have not had the courage to read Revelations yet.
... is chilling. And he's not the only one.
just ask a married pastor such as yourself
Actually, I'm not a pastor; sorry if I said anything that appeared to imply that. I am married, however, but I was a virgin til age 38 -- so I know something about celibacy... much more than I want to!
You know people give God no credit at all on this manner of the priesthood!! Like He has no idea we need priests and will not provide them....Why are you sooo fearful o you of little Faith...I am With you always even to the consumation of the world !
Married priests ARE NOT CATHOLIC PRIESTS....celibacy..Christ prefers His priest to give themseleves to the Dedication of HIS CHURCH..not their wife.
There is St. Paul and there is the Laws of the Catholic Church, celibacy..is what God asks of His priests..no futher answer necessary.
Thank you for your patience and for the explanation. I understand your point of view.
Our marvelling is reciprocal and mutual -- I cannot believe that Catholics don't see the anti-Catholic doctrine in it. I didn't want to, but I did.
BTW, on the subject of Protestant to Catholic conversions, are you familiar with Scott Hahn's "The Lamb's Supper - the Mass as Heaven on Earth"? Interesting reading. My Catholic brother-in-law loaned it to my Protestant father-in-law who loaned it to me... fascinating. Here's a review of it.
The celibacy of priest is an internal matter.
That contention itself is a matter of debate. It is argued that priestly celibacy has contributed to certain very public negative effects. I am aware that there are counterarguments (eg, Evangelical clergy, even married, sometimes molest too...) but it is an issue that at least arguably has societal effects.
[Anglican]is their church now not mine so I try to limit my comments to the public matter and stay out of internal divisions and housekeeping. It would only be justifiable if the issue was submitted for public consumption.
Would you consider the very public act of ordaining an unrepentant practicing sodomite as Bishop, to be "fair game" for criticism? Not comparing that to married priests, but just curious.
The side that made a vow they do not want to keep are the ones behind the public issue...why would you care to be a tool of someone whose agenda may or may not be honorable.
That has actually crossed my mind... although in my mind (and, indeed, in RC theology), the married-priest issue is utterly separate from the issues of abortion, homosexuality, women priests, etc, it worries me that the people support all those sins, also support married priests. Then again, I haven't heard of any lavender scandals in the ranks of the Orthodox.
I would be very suspicious of you if you were to return to the Church on this one issue and I would be cautious of any who would leave for the same.
Quite correct. I agree with you, actually; I wouldn't trust such a person either. However, if that were my only issue, I would go Orthodox (not Evangelical). BTW, from time to time one encounters Orthodox priests with names such as "O'-" or "Fitz-"; clearly Irish Catholic boys who felt the call of priesthood but couldn't handle celibacy!
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.