My comment written in reply to an analysis of Traditionalist site "Return to Tradition" of 2/4/2020 to exercise caution about reporting (source:
https://youtu.be/dyRNr36laVY):
Dr. Stine, your analysis is the same as my own. And I'm glad a traditional source like yours said it. LSN seemed premature reporting the abolishing celibacy rumor, even if it was based on journalists who tend to be more reliable than not, and they should have acted as Voris did who verified his facts before going public about McC. Having "several bishops" as the source or simply re-quoting the Synod document in the LSN article are not the same as actual post-synodal draft quotes which they did not publish. There was no solid evidence other than rumor. Also, even if the post-synodal document doesn't address married priests this month, as this second source is saying, I did want to comment here that it doesn't preclude Francis from addressing it another time (perhaps after Sarah's book comes out). But like you said, let's wait and see. Finally, for the record, I am not advocating abolishing celibacy, but rather we should maintain celibacy as the 'norm' in the Latin rite but grant canonical dispensations on a case by case basis. This is what 20th Century Popes have done starting with Pope Pius XII who dispensed a married man to the Latin rite priesthood in 1952 before Vatican II. There were 5 more married priests that following that first dispensation in Germany. Francis wouldn't be doing anything different. There were no expectations for continence from them then, just as there are no expectations for mandated continence for the Ordinariate married priests now. The Church has the authority to decree on such matters. The Church taketh away but the Church also giveth.
No comments:
Post a Comment