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."
So anyone claiming to be a deacon from Texas is a liar?
I'm sorry, but you are off topic. Do you have any comments you'd like to share about this Cardinal breaking his oath to defend the Catholic discipline of a celibate priesthood? Or about the credibility of a poster who claims to be that which they are not and posts articles like this, in order to subvert the Faith to their personal agenda?
I think the point is that no active deacon has posted here. Of course, later today a dozen Texas deacons could sign up and post. But as of now, no.
The rule would still remain, first married, then priested, and no married need apply for bishoprics. Then we have the Greek problem: How to find women willing to marry into that lifestyle. The real problem of the '60 was not that they lusted after women, but that they lost faith in their divine mission. They dropped their crosses and walked away.
??? Parish priests were "immensely powerful and wealthy" if your standard for power and wealth is "able to read, even some Latin, not required to sleep in the same room with the pigs, and not treated like the slave of the local noble".
Bishops were frequently immensely powerful and wealthy, but they were generally made bishops because they were powerful and wealthy, not the other way around.
And the "celibacy because of greed" argument is historically bogus; celibacy was mandated in the West from before the time of Constantine. The Lateran council reiterated the customary discipline because it was being abused, quite openly in places.
B-16 may well take some action--but there's only a 50/50 chance that it will be 'observable' from the outside.
The comments were not exactly inflammatory, unlike his earlier bizzoid remarks and actions.
I invented Post-It notes.
And yet somehow 1tim4:3 doesn't apply?
This reveals all.
That is the only way to resolve whether we have a fraud/troll on our hands, or just a liberal deacon wrongfully maligned by a crank (myself.)
Censoring posts that attempt to defend the Faith and conservatism from frauds/trolls seems to me to violate the spirit of Free Republic.
And IF I'm wrong, I'll be glad to publicly grovel and apologize and make mea culpas for my errors and sins.
Pace the Prots, this is only PARTLY true.
What we know is that some priests were married despite significant official discouragement of marriage.
Research is now pointing to the likelihood that men who wished to be ordained were either to be celibate--or, if married, to refrain from relations.
There are sinners. Thus the discipline was codified.
But it had almost nothing to do with "property rights,"--that was more a civil issue w/dukes, lords, et al wanting the damn land...
Of course, there is also a mis-interpretation of the phrase "let him accept..." which is useful for certain purposes.
The OTHER side of "let him accept..." is "let him accept the priesthood"--that is, if one cannot accept celibacy, one cannot accept the priesthood.
Ain't no RIGHT to Ordination out there.
It seemed to be a pretty clear point, but one never knows. Rumor has it that some Texas deacons and priests think Free Republic is a laughingstock, because the Catholic Caucus takes its Faith seriously and wants to defend it against misrepresentations by frauds/trolls.
I don't think 1 Timothy 4:3 applies. If St. Paul wanted to point to priestly celibacy as heretical, he would have said, "forbidding priests to marry". And he would not have offered his own celibacy as a worthy example.
With regard to the people, the Church is just about the only force left encouraging people to marry.
The prophecy of 1 Timothy 4:3 may very well be close to fulfillment today with no-fault divorce on demand and gay "marriage".
"How would priest's sons inherit property which belonged to the Church?"
Partly people leaving endowments to the Church (in the person of the priest), along with land and buildings, but the main way involved children of clergy inheriting the benefices or "livings" that were attached to the clerical appointments.
This was a period when there was a lot of corruption in the Church and benefices were treated as a tradable commodity - not least by some of the Popes.
He broke his solemn oath - either he lied at the time he made the above statement or he is lying now - doesn't even matter whether you agree with a celibate priesthood or not. This cardinal is someone who lies and breaks oaths in order to maintain his red hat. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Not a cardinal I could follow in good Catholic conscience.
He broke his solemn oath - either he lied at the time he made the above statement or he is lying now - doesn't even matter whether you agree with a celibate priesthood or not. This cardinal is someone who lies and breaks oaths in order to maintain his red hat.
Dittos. And for that, NOT for his recent statements on celibacy per se, he should be removed.
A short time ago I actually took the time to read the study on the scandal in the Church done by the John Jay Institute. Much to my surprise, the accused included married deacons and also of course, married laypeople working in various parish ministries. I was kind of surprised since a poster here on FR has several times made the statement that no deacons were ever accused of abuse.
Absolutely. What got us into the entire scandal was lying and breaking oaths and vows. Which is why Catholics should insist and strive for orthodoxy in all things - nothing less will do, regardless of the context.
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.