Skip to main content

Should Catholic priests be allowed to marry?

Image
By

The Big Questions, BBC1, Sunday 28 June 2009, hosted by Nicky Campbell.

Apparently, the hardest people to book for the programme are Catholic priests, because they have to find another priest to cover their parishes so they can appear on TV. Kind of commendable that they're at their posts. The Big Questions is one of those strange anomalies: a religious programme that is on air when anyone who is a truly committed Christian will probably be attending a church service. Well, watch it on iplayer, like I do: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007zpll. Father John Flynn, chaplain of Salford University, said that he "wouldn't be a priest if there was no celibacy". He held up Christ as his model for celibacy, argued winsomely for the superiority of the kingdom of God and pointed out Christ's comment that there is no marriage in heaven. As a counterpoint, a former Catholic priest Joe Fitzpatrick stated his opposition to compulsory celibacy. He maintained that 75% of French churchgoers wanted the RCC to change its teaching in this issue.

A Methodist minister, Jerry Wilson, then waded in, explaining how Jesus taught the value of marriage and how priests may be denied a very important aspect of the love of God. A woman in the audience questioned how a celibate man could advise a woman with eight children. Programme regular, Father Stephen Maughan, pointed out that, though a hospital chaplain, he's never been in hospital. This does not disqualify him from offering help and advice to the sick. Peter Hitchens, surprisingly, adopted a laissez-faire attitude: it's their church, let them make their rules. This in my mind contrasted with his views on Islam. The now-married former priest pointed out that the majority of Polish priests want the celibacy rule to be overturned, and spoke in favour of marriage in his experience. The burka-ed lady stepped in to say that priests may not be tempted to interfere with children if they were married – amazingly, for a woman covered from head to toe, she criticised them for "suppressing a natural desire."

The most entertaining exchange for me was from Thomas Cahill, a young man who considered the priesthood. He said, "I see celibacy as an affirmation of the beauty of marital love. You can only sacrifice something good: marriage, sex, love." Campbell's reply: "But not whisky, in my experience!"

My closing thought: Peter, supposedly the first bishop of Rome, was married. Paul speaks of apostles having the right to take a believing wife. If apostles, then why not 'ordinary' church leaders?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

By
The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...
70 comments
Read more

Cheers!

By
  In their latest update #4, the Jehovah’s Witnesses' Governing Body has announced that toasting and ‘ clinking glasses’  is now allowed at the individual Jehovah’s Witness’s ‘ bible trained conscience’ .  This, Governing Body member Stephen Lett tells us, is due to ‘ prayerful consideration’  by the Governing Body.  This doesn’t sound unreasonable; who could possibly object to toasting, it’s such an innocuous custom?  The answer to that is the Governing Body itself, until now. Ever since 1952, and possibly earlier, the Watchtower has roundly condemned this practice due to its ‘ pagan roots’  in ‘ false religion’ .  The 15 May 1952 Watchtower (page 319), has this to say on the matter Jehovah God and Christ Jesus are not honored by having pagan customs of toasting switched to them, or to human s In 1968, in an answer to  Questions from Readers,  the 1 Jan Watchtower states If a Christian is going to make a request f...
1 comment
Read more

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

By
The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...
18 comments
Read more