Amazon Synod considering the possible ordination of married men

[Gorgias]

Don’t forget that with married priests is that there wives would have to consent (as is already the case for deacons).

Here’s the way I might see it playing out: bishop X contacts (retired) married priest Y and offers to get him out of his poor, rural area and give him a better life in his diocese as one of his priests. Everyone gets what they want, right? The married priest and his wife get a cushy new living situation, and the “pro-married priest” bishop gets to further his pet project by having a married priest minister in his diocese in a very public way.

(Yeah, I know… quite a narrative, eh? )

 

[jack63]

I’ll go put away my tinfoil hat, now…

I feel that way sometimes here too.

I don’t think your concerns about married priests coming into and out of the amazon are that far fetched at all. I could see priests being pulled out of regions such as the Amazon or other regions where they might allow married priests or people going into such regions just to be a married priests. My thinking is something like “Of course people will try this!”

 

[BartholomewB]

This week’s issue of the Catholic Herald sees the married priests question as a “European agenda” that threatens to overshadow the Amazon Synod:

Outspoken German churchmen hope that the synod will call for married priests, so they will be able to petition for them too, as Germany is suffering from a similar dearth of vocations. Bishop Franz-Josef Overbeck, head of the German bishops’ Latin America commission, predicts that the synod will lead the Church to a “point of no return” and that “nothing will be the same as it was” after October.

But it would be a pity if the synod were driven by European agendas. Married priests are, in any case, unlikely to be a magic bullet for the evangelisation of a region as remote and complex as the Amazon.

https://catholicherald.co.uk/the-amazon-synod-could-be-overshadowed-by-european-agendas/

 

[Weserthy]

When you look at who’s really pushing the married priests topic on the agenda at the upcoming synod, it is mostly Europeans. There are already some German bishops who have gone on the record saying that if the Amazon gets married priests, then they want them too. It’s not exactly a mystery what the real motives here are.

 

[jack63]

I understand that there are many Catholics around the world paying attention to what happens with married priests in the Amazon in October. Yes it matters. However…

The thing is this…I can’t imagine Catholics in the Amazon care what Catholics in the US or in Germany think. They care that they aren’t really able to really practice their faith because they don’t see a priest except for 2 or 3 times a year. This article about the true motivations behind the chess moves in the Amazon will not make any sense to them at all.

 

[InThePew]

It would be a matter for individual bishops (possibly bishops conferences) to decide whether or not they would ordain married men. Again though, relaxing the requirements around celibacy is nothing new (before the pastoral provision married Anglican priests were expected to effectively abandon their wives) and the Church will not collapse in on itself were this to happen. Celibacy is a discipline (a blessed and beneficial one to be sure) but only that.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The thing is this…I can’t imagine Catholics in the Amazon care what Catholics in the US or in Germany think. They care that they aren’t really able to really practice their faith because they don’t see a priest except for 2 or 3 times a year.

It should be noted that they are not the first group of Catholics in history to be in this position. In the early USA for example, there were many parts of the country that saw a priest only occasionally. Priests had to ride around in the wilderness and try to serve outlying areas. There wasn’t a push for married priests then.

 

[twf]

It should be noted that they are not the first group of Catholics in history to be in this position. In the early USA for example, there were many parts of the country that saw a priest only occasionally. Priests had to ride around in the wilderness and try to serve outlying areas. There wasn’t a push for married priests then.

There are many such regions around the world today. Very Northern Canada comes to mind where you have dioceses literally far larger than the typical country but very sparsely spread populations. When I was first received into the Church years ago, my first priest was from India. He had spent some years as a missionary priest in Northern India where he served about 50 villages. He would simply travel from village to village, sometimes only ministering to a single family or two in one place.

I think it should be noted that India, unlike Latin America, has a surplus of vocations. I remember my priest telling me that the local seminary, where he was from, had to turn people away because it was overflowing. Of course, even non-Catholic India has a long and venerated tradition of celibacy.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Of course, even non-Catholic India has a long and venerated tradition of celibacy.

And if they can have it there, and in other countries as well, I have to wonder why it is apparently such a struggle for so many in the West. Oh well…

 

[jack63]

Below is an interesting article by Father Longenecker from yesterday. He is a married priest who writes about the topics discussed here and a lot of other interesting topics too. It is as if read this discussion here…who knows…. I generally like what he has to say about many things and agree with much of what he has to say. It is perhaps strange that much of what he says resonates with me. Most people who know me would take me for another flighty northern progressive academic at first impression. I’m not. Anyway…

“Beware the Arguments for Married Priests in the Amazon”

https://dwightlongenecker.com/beware-the-arguments-for-married-priests-in-the-amazon/

Could married men be ordained as priests? Yes. It is a discipline of the church that can be changed. The arguments back and forth almost always focus on the practicalities: how would we pay them? What about their wives and families? What happens if there is a divorce? Who will look after clergy widows? All these practical problems could be easily overcome. Therefore this type of discussion is pointless. What worries me about this discussion back and forth is the lack of any theological dimension.

If a whole area of the church makes the change–let’s say the Dioceses in the Amazon–you can be sure that it will spread. The change will have taken place by stealth. This is not the way change should happen in the church. Call it the stealth synod method. Furthermore, this change by stealth synod is insidious. Just read the working document. They want to downplay doctrine. They want to get rid of an overarching doctrine for all Catholics. They want to bring in a “recognized ministry for women.” That’s code for women deacons of course.

If married men are to be ordained, the discipline should be discussed at the highest levels. The theology should be done. The whole church should be consulted and after proper discernment and a theological and Scriptural grounding the change should be effected for the whole church.

 

[BartholomewB]

I don’t know whether Fr. Longenecker reads the Catholic Herald, but if he does, it would be interesting to see his reaction to this week’s op ed piece I linked to in an earlier comment. Fr. Longenecker warns against what he calls “the stealth synod method.” But the German bishops – according to the Catholic Herald – have moved on from “stealth.” They’re quite open about ther aims.

Outspoken German churchmen hope that the synod will call for married priests, so they will be able to petition for them too, as Germany is suffering from a similar dearth of vocations. Bishop Franz-Josef Overbeck, head of the German bishops’ Latin America commission, predicts that the synod will lead the Church to a “point of no return” and that “nothing will be the same as it was” after October.

 

[CTBcin]

I don’t know whether Fr. Longenecker reads the Catholic Herald

I’m pretty sure that he is an occasional contributor to the Catholic Herald.

 

[InThePew]

I don’t disagree with him when he says that change shouldn’t happen by stealth but, that said, I don’t see that there’s a world of difference (in terms of what he’s talking about) between ordaining married men as “special exceptions” and what’s being discussed for the Amazon region. Still, he’s right is saying that if this is to become a widespread thing (even if only potentially) then the discussions need to be universal rather than local.

 

[jack63]

Still, he’s right is saying that if this is to become a widespread thing (even if only potentially) then the discussions need to be universal rather than local.

I thought about this. On one level he is right.

So to think out loud (not trying to debate anyone)… On another level the Catholic church and other churches has been trying to come to a universal agreement on mandatory celibacy for centuries. I mean Martin Luther wrote extensively about it as I understand. He died long before Jamestown was even established in the US. Nobody is going to come to some agreement or theological understanding of mandatory celibacy in the next few years. It is simply “not going to happen”. Perhaps all the understanding we are going to get is that it is “a blessed and beneficial” discipline.

If it is just a blessed and beneficial discipline, why does the discussion even need to be universal?

 

[Gorgias]

If it is just a blessed and beneficial discipline, why does the discussion even need to be universal?

Because the discipline is one of the universal Church?

 

[PickyPicky]

Because the discipline is one of the universal Church?

Am I wrong in thinking it doesn’t apply for Eastern Catholics ?

 

[dochawk]

Undoubtedly, although that said, bishops tend to be a bit more cautious these days about picking up waifs and strays from other dioceses (once bitten and all that…)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Gorgias:

Hey, there’s only been one case in our local RC parish in which an imported priest hit a parishioner over the head with a bottle of wine (while helping at the RC parish), became an interstate fugitive from justice, and tied the diocese up with the resultant litigation!



For some reason, the next priest his church sent met with a rather chilly reception . . .

And I’ve been told that there’s a group of something like a dozen priests in another country that want to come here (and the diocese needs priests desperately; it has something like 18 parishes where the norm would her 99), but the bishop isn’t convinced that they’re “stable” . . .

There would need to be a canon law adjustment to handle this class of priests, and in a way that would prevent their reception by any bishop of a diocese in which such provisions were not in place.

While I’m a firm supporter of the Eastern notion of married priests (and the priest for the other parish in town from our Eparchy has his son in our parish’s preschool where my wife worked!), and think it would be a good idea in the West, I certainly see how this would open the doors to abuse if not handled cautiously . . .

Because the discipline is one of the universal Church?

Of what “universal Church” do you speak?

Certainly not the one of those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, as almost all of those churches have had married priests since they began . . .

 

[twf]

Of what “universal Church” do you speak?

I imagine the intent was universal, or rather global, Latin Church, rather than the particular norms of a certain episcopal conference / region as is under discussion here…
I would personally speak of the global Latin Church to avoid the implication that the Eastern Catholic Churches are “chopped liver”.

 

[jack63]

Because the discipline is one of the universal Church?

So the CCC gives the following understanding of the priestly celibacy discipline.

1599: In the Latin Church the sacrament of Holy Orders for the presbyterate is normally conferred only on candidates who are ready to embrace celibacy freely and who publicly manifest their intention of staying celibate for the love of God’s kingdom and the service of men.

The thing is that this is not at all strong language…“It is normally done this way in the Latin Church”. I don’t know why a universal discussion is needed based on the catechism. If a bishop or group of bishops want some exceptions in extraordinary cases, it would seem reasonable to ask for them based on this language in the catechism. To me it seems like the discussion to allow this type of thing has already happened and is recorded in the CCC.

 

[Gorgias]

Of what “universal Church” do you speak?

Context, doc, context…

The question was whether this should be a discussion that is ‘local’ or ‘universal’. Since it’s a question that affects the entire Church – that is, the universal Church – it’s therefore a discussion that should be handled at the universal level and not the local one.

Bringing up Eastern Rites is immaterial to this question, I think, since the question was “local or universal?”, not “western or eastern?”…