Amazon Synod considering the possible ordination of married men

  • Thread starter Thread starter CTBcin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CTBcin

Guest
It will be interesting to see what comes of this. My gut reaction is to be opposed to it, but we shall see.

They are also trying to debate an “official” ministry for women (but not priesthood, diaconate, etc.)

http://m.ncregister.com/60929/d
 
Last edited:
I thought the reason they were considering allowing married men to be priests in this particular region was because they had a serious priest shortage there, presumably because men did not want to go into this remote area to serve. Not in order to “give the church an indigenous face”.
 
Last edited:
schism for what? There already are married men serving as priest in the Catholic church
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
I thought the reason they were considering allowing married men to be priests in this particular region was because they had a serious priest shortage there, presumably because men did not want to go into this remote area to serve. Not in order to “give the church an indigenous face”.
Click to expand...
You’re correct. However, as I was reading the article and thinking about what they might be trying to express, it occurred to me what the local synod might be anticipating: if the Church does open up the priesthood to married men, even if only in a limited way, then it’s possible that some who wish to experience this ministry might want to “import” themselves into the local situation there. Anticipating that possible scenario, the synod might be signaling that they wish this to be a local solution to a local issue.

“Giving the church an indigenous face”, then, wouldn’t be the goal of this particular attempt to solve a problem, but it could be the approach in implementing the solution.
 
Gorgias said:
if the Church does open up the priesthood to married men, even if only in a limited way, then it’s possible that some who wish to experience this ministry might want to “import” themselves into the local situation there.
Click to expand...
So you are saying, they’re trying to guard against Americans or Europeans thinking they can take a brief few year visit to the Amazon so that they can be married priests? It is probably a good idea to guard against that…
 
Last edited:
Well, I’d be a lot more comfortable with priests who are very familiar with the culture, regardless of whether it’s because they’re indigenous themselves or have just spent a lot of time in the region. I would certainly hope they wouldn’t sign up priests with no knowledge of the culture who just want to serve there so they can be married priests.
 
jack63 said:
So you are saying, they’re trying to guard against Americans or Europeans thinking they can take a brief few year visit to the Amazon so that they can be married priests?
Click to expand...
I’m just thinking out loud and wondering if that isn’t the case…
Tis_Bearself said:
I would certainly hope they wouldn’t sign up priests with no knowledge of the culture who just want to serve there so they can be married priests.
Click to expand...
So, if I were thinking of how it might otherwise hash out, I’d think that there would be the possibility of a married priest moving out of the area and settling elsewhere (wherever that might be). What would happen then? “Once a priest, always a priest”, but… would he not be given faculties there? And, once that Pandora’s box had been opened… 🤔
 
You know, women control more in the church that you might think. At least at the parish level in the US. Women are just smart enough to let the men think they are in control. Same in a lot of good marriages.
Finally, if Jesus had established a female priesthood, we would never get the men involved.
 
Yes, religious women obviously are already an example of women with an official “ministry” within the Church. We also have consecrated virgins. I don’t know if it’s been brought back in any dioceses yet, but for decades there’s been talk of restoring the ancient office of consecrated widows.
I suppose they are referring to some sort of official ministry for married women…
 
KMG said:
The agenda has always been clear. Erode teachings on homosexuality; erode teachings on the indissolubility of marriage; erode clerical celibacy; explore expanded ministerial roles for women…
Click to expand...
I think you’re conflating a number of completely unrelated issues.

Teachings on homosexuality: Doctrine. Cannot be changed.

Teachings on the indissolubility of marriage: Doctrine. Cannot be changed.

Clerical celibacy: The norm under the current canon law of the Latin Church. The Latin Church has married priests for over a thousand years and still does have married priests who have converted from other churches and ecclesial communities. The Eastern Churches have married priests. This can be changed.

Ministerial roles for women: Half and half. Women cannot become priests or bishops. That is doctrine and cannot be changed. Women could be admitted to some kind of diaconate and/or could have other ministry roles or positions of authority in the Church. It has been argued that there is no reason why a woman cannot become a cardinal.
 
KMG said:
The agenda has always been clear. Erode teachings on homosexuality; erode teachings on the indissolubility of marriage; erode clerical celibacy; explore expanded ministerial roles for women…
Click to expand...
I also believe you are conflating expanding the role and number of married priests with the Catholic church deciding the world is flat and jumping off the edge.

The permanent diaconate restored in the late 60’s. The vast majority of these men are married. They have only strengthened the Church. Their ministry has meant a great deal to me personally. I really believe older married priests coming from diaconate that are true servants of the church and are vetted would only help in the Amazon and other places.
 
jack63 said:
I really believe older married priests coming from diaconate that are true servants of the church and are vetted would only help in the Amazon and other places.
Click to expand...
If that is what happens, then I would be OK with that.

However, that is not the end goal of some of the progressives in the Church.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
So, if I were thinking of how it might otherwise hash out, I’d think that there would be the possibility of a married priest moving out of the area and settling elsewhere (wherever that might be). What would happen then? “Once a priest, always a priest”, but… would he not be given faculties there? And, once that Pandora’s box had been opened… 🤔
Click to expand...
Joining any diocese (especially one in another, presumably very different, part of the world) isn’t simply a matter of showing up and saying “here I am”! Besides the usual background checks and immigration issues, dioceses tend to want people who are familiar with the pastoral context in which they’ll be working (or who will at least be committed indefinitely) and who can of course speak the language. In the case of married men, the diocese would also want to ensure the stability of the relationship and this would be difficult at best to discern if a man had only just moved to the area.

I would expect that, much like deacons, there would be a minimum age as well as a requirement for a man to have been married for a minimum number of years prior to ordination (or even acceptance into the seminary). Probably the biggest issue which would need to be addressed in the role of the priests wife - does she have a complementary ministry to her husband’s (like the Greek Presbytera) or does she just do her own thing (like many Anglican wives).
 
By the time a person has jumped through all these hoops, seems like you’re basically talking about ordaining already existing married deacons from the Amazon tribes. Almost no one else could fit all these requirements.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I thought the reason they were considering allowing married men to be priests in this particular region was because they had a serious priest shortage there
Click to expand...
I guess the question would be, “what constitutes a priest shortage?” The “shortage” must be defined, otherwise some areas with more progressive leanings may claim to have a priest “shortage” for the sake of allowing married men to be ordained.
 
Yeah, we pretty much have a “priest shortage” everywhere. So now we’re getting this business about needing indigenous men to be priests.

I’m not sure if the media reporting of this keeps shifting, or the argument in favor of married me in this region keeps shifting, or what’s going on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top