Scottish Cardinal Suggests Priests Should Marry

  • Thread starter Thread starter braidwood
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Its true that Christ never married…but its also true that Christ had a set mission as a roving preacher who was to be put to in his early 30s, and then be taken bodily into Heaven. Its also true that he was “fully man, and fully God”. That gives a new meaning to the term “grandfather”.

Not exactly a good comparison to today’s Priests.
 
Molokai_fire said:
A priest’s purpose is to be 'like Christ" and Jesus Christ was not married therefore priests do not marry. Their lives are fulfilled by leading their community spiritually, the vocation is fulfilled only if these requirements are met - those who try and change this wish to undo the foundation of our Belief
Click to expand...
No. Definitely not “foundation of our Belief,” according to the Church herself. Celibacy is discipline, not doctrine, and thus can be changed as prudence indicates (or does not).

It may be doubtful that it would be immediately, let alone universally, implemented, but it may gradually become an option, if cautious experimentation is positive.

Virtually all heterosexual rabbis marry/are married. Being married to a rabbi or a minister is challenging to the wife/mother, but then rabbis and ministers generally choose women who are up to the task and are realistic about shared time. 🙂 I have never met a married rabbi who short-changed his congregation, and I’ve met a lot of them.
 
RevDon said:
It is an issue of discipline. The testimony for the first thousand years was a married clergy. No doubt, it was spiritualized as a means of making the argument for a change to celibacy.
Click to expand...
Married clergy were *tolerated *prior to Trent, but the expectation always favored clerical continence, regardless of state in life.
 
As a current seminarian it’s been interesting to read people’s view on this. I should say at the outset though that any change probably isn’t going to have much affect on me. I would expect any change to be introduced after an extended period of consultation and discussion, even before the proposed wording of any changes was drafted. Let’s just say that time is not on my side!

That aside, I made my choice when I applied to enter the seminary and I have no intention of going back on that choice. For me, celibacy allows be to be fully committed to ministerial life without the responsibilities associated with family life. In saying that, I’m simply expressing my own, person view and mean no disrespect to married clergy in the Latin-rite, other rites or other Christian denominations. I once had an interesting conversation about this with an Anglican (Episcopalian) transitional deacon and his wife, who described their situation very well, saying it was a “joint ministry”. As I understand it, this is not too dissimilar from permanent deacons. I’d also note that while Christ was not married, St Peter was!

However, one of the important things to remember is that permanent deacons are often in full-time employment outside of the Church and thus not reliant on it for support. Of course, as another poster has pointed out, a married priest’s (or deacon’s) wife would of course be able to work and provide for their family. In any event, similar criteria would likely be applied to married applicants for the priesthood as are currently applied to applicant for the permanent diaconate (e.g. wife’s consent and participation, higher minimum age). Issues such as dependent children would probably be addressed based on the individual circumstances of each candidate.

I would also take issue with the suggestion that being married would somehow make priests more “rounded”. Just because a priest isn’t married doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily ignorant of married life.

Finally, it would be a mistake to see a relaxation of the celibacy rule as being some sort of magic solution for all vocations problems. While it’s human nature to look for easy answers to complex problems the reality is that only easy problems have easy answers and if it was that easy to solve it would have ceased to be a problem a long time ago!
 
this dude is a cardinal - are there repercussions from the church for this?

if not, then what does that say?

befuddled… seems like evertime i start to fall hook line and sinker… along comes a stinker…
 
this dude is a cardinal - are there repercussions from the church for this?
Click to expand...
For what? He isn’t challenging the authority of the Pope to dictate policy, and he isn’t going against a dogma of the church. Catholics are free to believe that Priests should be allowed to marry, so long as they recognize the right of the church to say otherwise, and follow said policies.
if not, then what does that say?
Click to expand...
It says that this happens to be an issue where there is sufficient room for opposing viewpoints and potential changes.
 
InThePew said:
As a current seminarian it’s been interesting to read people’s view on this. I should say at the outset though that any change probably isn’t going to have much affect on me. I would expect any change to be introduced after an extended period of consultation and discussion, even before the proposed wording of any changes was drafted. Let’s just say that time is not on my side!

That aside, I made my choice when I applied to enter the seminary and I have no intention of going back on that choice. For me, celibacy allows be to be fully committed to ministerial life without the responsibilities associated with family life. In saying that, I’m simply expressing my own, person view and mean no disrespect to married clergy in the Latin-rite, other rites or other Christian denominations. I once had an interesting conversation about this with an Anglican (Episcopalian) transitional deacon and his wife, who described their situation very well, saying it was a “joint ministry”. As I understand it, this is not too dissimilar from permanent deacons. I’d also note that while Christ was not married, St Peter was!

However, one of the important things to remember is that permanent deacons are often in full-time employment outside of the Church and thus not reliant on it for support. Of course, as another poster has pointed out, a married priest’s (or deacon’s) wife would of course be able to work and provide for their family. In any event, similar criteria would likely be applied to married applicants for the priesthood as are currently applied to applicant for the permanent diaconate (e.g. wife’s consent and participation, higher minimum age). Issues such as dependent children would probably be addressed based on the individual circumstances of each candidate.

I would also take issue with the suggestion that being married would somehow make priests more “rounded”. Just because a priest isn’t married doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily ignorant of married life.

Finally, it would be a mistake to see a relaxation of the celibacy rule as being some sort of magic solution for all vocations problems. While it’s human nature to look for easy answers to complex problems the reality is that only easy problems have easy answers and if it was that easy to solve it would have ceased to be a problem a long time ago!
Click to expand...
Thanks so much for your well-rounded and thoughtful post.

The measured tone and balanced viewpoint you present are a breath of fresh air around here.

God Bless!
 
Sorry if this is an ignorant question but should there be a time of married Priests could this go right to the top i.e a married Pope?
 
PHILIP WILLIAMS: Cardinal O’Brian says the issue of women’s place in the church could also be revisited.
Click to expand...
KEITH O’BRIEN: Previous popes have said that matter of whether or not women could be ordained priests just wasn’t even to be discussed.
Click to expand...
There were issues like this that I’m sure the next Pope will consider himself, first of all, before deciding whether or not to raise these issues with the Church in general.
Click to expand...
A pope has no authority to change the priesthood. I thought a Cardinal would know that

abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3696665.htm
 
R_C said:
…it would seem to be a major departure from tradition to all of a sudden introduce this.
Click to expand...
i don;t see why it would be a departure from apostolic tradition since Jesus chose a married man to be the first Pope of the Catholic Church.
 
JackyB said:
Sorry if this is an ignorant question but should there be a time of married Priests could this go right to the top i.e a married Pope?
Click to expand...
No such thing as a stupid question! While there’s nothing to stop that (in theory at least) current practise has been to allow married priests (in some circumstances) but not married bishops.

Seeing you live in England, a good example of this is is the Anglican Ordinariate for former members of the Anglican church where the leader can only be ordained a bishop if he is single . The head of the Ordinariate, Monsignor Keith Newton is married and thus ineligible to be ordained a bishop. a similar approach is also taken by Eastern-rite Churches where bishops are selected from amongst the celibate clergy.

Also, Ringil - thank you for your kind words.
 
Hasire said:
A priest marrying would be so **wrong.

And, scandalous. Cardinal Tagle’s admission that there is a problem with priests having mistresses in the Philippines comes to mind (a link to that was posted in another thread). What will the Church be telling its flock in those cases? Bad enough to acknowledge that some priests are weak but, for the Church to give in, just because some priests cannot abide by priestly discipline and seek the companionship of women, opens up a can of worms.
Click to expand...
 
InThePew said:
…I would also take issue with the suggestion that being married would somehow make priests more “rounded”. Just because a priest isn’t married doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily ignorant of married life. …
Click to expand...
Conversely, I take issue with the notion that being a single priest is a better choice.
 
A thought that comes to mind is, what happens if a wife wishes to get out of her marriage, obviously she cannot divorce within the Catholic Church - so lets say the marriage is annulled and/or the husband the priest (ex-husband) then remarries, which could also occur if the wife died and the priest was widowed. If there were children from the first and second marriages, where is the money sought to look after both families. I can only assume the courts could also be involved in relation to child custody for the first marriage. Personally, I could envisage priests getting marrying devaluing the church and its’ teachings, particularly in the times we currently live in.

Also, although not in keeping with the thread’s subject, what if nuns wished to marry and set up an order that allowed this?

IMO it opens a can of worms and devalues the virtue of chastity for the unmarried section of the Catholic congregation.
 
Hasire said:
**1. All priests in the Catholic Church are “Alter Christus”.
2. Not being married is to be “Alter Christus”.
3. Melkite/Recieved Anglican priests are married.
**
Therefore, they are not “Alter Christus”.
Therefore, they are not priests of the Catholic Church.
Therefore, they are not Catholic.

Tell the Melkites that.
Click to expand...
Either you don’t really read what I write or you are intentionally getting offended for no reason.

I said it was another way to be alter christus…not the only way.

I do not have an issue with a married clergy. I do not prefer it though. Do you have an issue with my opinion on this? If so, I can’t help that.
 
Tomdstone said:
i don;t see why it would be a departure from apostolic tradition since Jesus chose a married man to be the first Pope of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
But let’s not forget that St Peter had to leave his family to follow Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top