That's a fatuous claim. There is nothing to base his opinion on since there have not been married priests.
“Another difficulty facing a married priest arises if he does not enjoy a good relationship with his parishioners,” he said. “His bishop cannot transfer him because of the difficulty of transferring his whole family.”
Companies do it all the time. How would it be any different. Also, judging by the problems of the past the Church doesn't do a whole lot of priest moving anyway.
Secondly, the average RC priest in the west receives a salary of approximately $21,000/annum. To support a wife and children would require additional financial support from the congregation. If you follow the news, you already know that many Catholic Churches are closing due to poor attendance. If we cannot support a celibate priest, how could we afford a married one?
Jewish congregations do it. When they contract a Rabbi and he's married that's taken into account. Or, they could simply use more of the money collected at the church instead of sending off to the Bishops and their pet causes.
Do you seriously expect me to believe that a Catholic congregation would NOT contribute to a priest and his family when the Church begs them every week to contribute to every other cause and they give?
“If Jesus Christ wanted priests to be married,” he continued, “he would have gotten married himself.”
That last statement really sums it up.
What does it sum up? That the cardinal is making things up? Christ was not a priest. He is the Son of God. Equating the two is pure sophistry.
The Cardinal in question is the Maronite patriarch of Antioch, in Syria. The Maronite Catholic Church has had married priests for centuries. They live among the Melkite Catholics and Antiochene Orthodox, and practically Melkite and Orthodox priests are married.
So, in other words, there's nothing "fatuous" about it. Cardinal Sfeir has forgotten more about married priests than you or I know.
What does it sum up? That the cardinal is making things up? Christ was not a priest. He is the Son of God. Equating the two is pure sophistry.
Christ is the high priest of the new covenant. Hebrews makes that perfectly clear.
Was and still is. Better read all of Hebrews, perhaps for the very first time.
"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly vocation, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus:" Hebrews 3:1
"Having therefore a great high priest that hath passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God: let us hold fast our confession." Hebrews 4:14
"As He saith also in another place: Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. Who in the days of His flesh, with a strong cry and tears, offering up prayers and supplications to Him that was able to save Him from death, was heard for His reverence. And whereas indeed He was the Son of God, He learned obedience by the things which He suffered: And being consummated, He became, to all that obey Him, the cause of eternal salvation. Called by God a high priest according to the order of Melchisedech." Hebrews 5:6-10
"But this, for that He continueth for ever, hath an everlasting priesthood, Whereby He is able also to save for ever them that come to God by Him; always living to make intercession for us. For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens" Hebrews 7:24-26
"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ." St. Jerome