Cardinal Hummes Chaired Drafting Team for Amazon Synod Document: Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna

Source: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/leaked-amazon-synod-text-on-priestly-ordination-of-married-men-a-draft-56220 (9 Feb. 2020)

Excerpt:

Four days before the final document was approved, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna indicated that it was to be written principally by a team chaired by Cardinal Hummes.

Amazonian Exception Projected to Be Region-Based But No Wider Expansion: EWTN Vatican News Analyst Andrea Galiarducci

https://youtu.be/MzDZdN7h-pc (9 Feb. 2020)

5 "various outcomes are possible" for priestly celibacy in 'Querida Amazonia' on Wed., Feb. 12, 2020: Ed Pentin (EWTN)

Source: https://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/what-will-the-popes-post-amazon-synod-document-say-about-priestly-celibacy (8 Feb. 2020)

My commentary: This is one of the best analyses I have seen to date.  #2 and/or #3 are my projections.  Here's what I think about Ed Pentin's list of possibilities.

1 - Not likely. Cat out of the bag.

2 - #2 is my first projection of what will happen.  Maintain celibacy as the norm but expand dispensation exceptions to Amazon region.

3 - #3 is the second most likely possibility, but if this did happen for other world bishops to consider, it would happen as the next step or concurrent with #2 above.

4 - Francis won't abolish celibacy, but it is more correct for Pentin to say that Francis will 'continue the practice of his predecessors' beginning with Pius XII to dispense married men to the Latin rite priesthood.  Francis would be expanding what his predecessors have done to the Amazon region and even other areas.

5 - Possible but not likely.

Excerpt (from Ed Pentin)

"1. The first could be that the post-synodal apostolic exhortation indeed contains no reference to viri probati, and so the document presents no danger to the mandatory celibacy rule."

"2. The second possibility is that the document firmly reasserts the Church’s discipline and so appears to adhere to orthodoxy, but allows an exception for the Amazon synod proposal."

"3.A third scenario is that the document contains no reference to viri probati and the celibacy rule would appear to have survived intact. But in reality, rather than being completely shelved, the matter would either be transferred to the new constitution for the Roman Curia and, in turn, bishops’ conferences."

"4. A fourth hypothesis is that the Pope says the exhortation must be read in light of the final document, allowing him to make no reference himself to the issue of viri probati and so at least avoid the accusation that he, himself, caused the abolition of priestly celibacy."

"5.A fifth possibility is that no reference is made to viri probati and a change to the priestly celibacy rule is postponed. It would then be dealt with either in a “study commission” on the matter, or in light of the next Synod of Bishops which will probably be on synodality."

Holy See Press Office: "Querida Amazonia" will be presented on Wed., Feb. 12, 2020, 1pm (Rome Time)

Source: https://zenit.org/articles/popes-post-synodal-exhortation-on-the-amazon-to-be-presented-next-week/ (8 Feb. 2020)

Excerpt: Pope Francis’ post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Amazon will be presented next week.

In a statement from the Holy See Press Office today, journalists were informed that Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2020 , at 1 pm , there will be the presentation of the document, titled: “Querida Amazonia (‘Dear Amazon’),” in the Holy See Press Office.

Vatican Press Conference for Feb. 12, 2020, Set; Leaked excerpt said Pope approved viri probati: Italian Vatican journalist Roberto de Mattei

Source: https://osvnews.com/2020/02/07/pope-francis-exhortation-on-the-amazon-synod-to-be-released-feb-12/ (8 Feb 2020)

Excerpt:

 Italian Vatican journalist Roberto de Mattei reported last week that he had obtained a leaked excerpt of the exhortation where the pope was said to approve of ordaining the viri probati (“esteemed men of virtue”) to the priesthood.

CNA: The text provided by de Mattei is substantially identical to article 111 of the final document of the Amazon synod, which calls for the ordination of married men as priests.

Source: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/leaked-amazon-synod-text-on-priestly-ordination-of-married-men-a-draft-56220 (8 Feb. 2020)

Excerpt:

“What is now circulating is one draft, which was distributed for review and comment as the final text is developed,” a source in the Dicastery for Communication told CNA Jan. 31.

The text provided by de Mattei is substantially identical to article 111 of the final document of the Amazon synod, which calls for the ordination of married men as priests.

That article of the final document proposes “that criteria and dispositions be established by the competent authority, within the framework of Lumen Gentium 26, to ordain as priests suitable and respected men of the community … who have had a fruitful permanent diaconate and receive an adequate formation for the priesthood, in order to sustain the life of the Christian community through the preaching of the Word and the celebration of the Sacraments in the most remote areas of the Amazon region.”

According to de Mattei, the text he published came to him “from several bishops” who had received a portion of the forthcoming apostolic exhortation.

Fuller Context of St. Bridget Quote: Married Christian Priests who lived in 'Carnal Marriage' were 'still friends of God'

Source: https://onepeterfive.com/a-father-to-his-flock-in-defense-of-priestly-celibacy/ (6 Feb. 2020)

This comment was in response to the so-called St. Bridget quote by Peter James:

Peter James21 days ago edited

There are a couple of problems with the “prophecy”of St. Bridget:

First, personal prophecies and visions are just that Personal. We are not bound to believe them. And many times they are inaccurate.

Second, The entire prophecy is not included in your article. Before it gets into the incredible punishment due the pope there are several paragraphs. One of them read as such:

“…For after he instituted in the world this new sacrament of the Eucharist and ascended into heaven, the ancient law was then still kept: namely, that Christian priests lived in CARNAL matrimony. And, nonetheless, many of them were still friends of God because they believed with simple purity that this was pleasing to God: namely, that Christian priests should have wives and live in wedlock just as, in the ancient times of the Jews, this had pleased him in the case of Jewish priests. And so, this was the observance of Christian priests for many years.

And it goes on and on and on and on.

Basically, the vision is implying belief that in the ancient Church, priestly marriage was common and accepted, but then later was revoked under the inspiration of a particular pontiff, presumably Pope St. Gregory VII, under whom the Gregorian Reform struck out against clerical concubinage.

You can’t have it both ways:

1. The prophecy is true but Mary is historically inaccurate and counter to what most of the posts on this site state “that married priest lived in continence even in the early church” but she's right in wanting the priests not to have carnal marriage or perhaps 2. Mary is historically right and God just changed his mind several hundred years later as she states in the prophecy. Both are doubtful.

Finally, Mary is of few words. She may show children in Fatima hell but I don’t think she is big on giving every detail play by play.

Francis & Benedict on Same Side of Celibacy Debate, “They are both willing to entertain limited exceptions": John Allen, Jr.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/pope-benedict-wants-his-name-removed-from-book-about-priestly-celibacy/2020/01/14/1d5ffe44-36dc-11ea-a1ff-c48c1d59a4a1_story.html (14 Jan. 2020)

Excerpt: 

John L. Allen Jr., editor of the Catholic news site Crux and a biographer of Benedict, said Tuesday that despite the fracas, Benedict and Francis were on the same side of the celibacy debate.  

“They are both willing to entertain limited exceptions,” said Allen, noting that Benedict allowed married Anglican converts to become Catholic priests

Holy See: "Francis turned over his document to Holy See for translation on Dec. 27 [4th anniversary of this blog], before 'From the Depths of Our Heart' came out. They said Francis’s text did not undergo any changes since then."

Source: https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2020/02/popes-amazon-document-due-wednesday-amid-married-priest-row/ (8 Feb. 2020)

Excerpt:

Vatican officials sought to defuse that idea Friday, saying Francis had turned over his document to the Holy See for translation on Dec. 27, before From the Depths of Our Heart came out. They said Francis’s text did not undergo any changes since then.

Amazon bishops know their region and priest needs better than us: Brian Holdsworth

https://youtu.be/6z2G_q-n_7M (7 Feb. 2020)

Citing Elvira is "Theologically Shooting Oneself in the Foot" - Shows No Evidence for Mandating Celibacy/Continence Before Local 4th Century Synod; Refuting comment of "Let Latins Be Latins & East Be East"

My comment:

Dr. K., your article, while well written, relies too heavily on Fr. Selin's assumptions and data. This in turn leads you to at least one contested conclusion concerning 'mandated' continence. It would be stronger to hold to Brumley's position over Selin's in the final analysis. Let me explain.

S wrote: "In the fourth century the first conciliar legislation concerning a consistent practice of clerical continence and celibacy appears in the Latin Church."

Given this, the problem is three-fold: (1) There is no clear mandate for compulsory continence prior to the 4th Century. Celibacy and continence indeed go back to the time of the Twelve Apostles, as is noted, but 'mandatory' celibacy and 'mandatory' continence does not go to the Twelve. It is not sufficient furthermore to hold that the Church was coming out of persecution and as such could not regulate continence in eccleisial documents (or even the Fathers before the 4th C) b/c ecclesial documents do in fact exist and they do not regulate clerical conjugal relations before the 4th Century. (2) Selin, Stickler, Sarah, others, and now you cite the local Council of Elvira in AD 305 as the earliest evidence for mandated continence, but none of these revered scholars can point to any written universal evidence before this LOCAL council. Even the UNIVERSAL Council of Nicea in 325 did not teach on mandated continence but rather taught that (married) priests once ordained cannot marry. Elvira was a local council for that region, along with Carthage, but they were not councils of the universal holy Catholic Church. The Elvira Synod had the same magisterial authority as does the Amazon Synod. (3) By Fr. Selin's own admission, no evidence exists between the time of the Apostles and AD 305. Crickets. The silence on 'mandated' celibacy and 'mandated' continence is defeaning. Anytime someone cites Elvira it is shooting oneself in the foot bc it declares that no evidence for 'mandated' universal continence existed before the 4th C.

This leads your argument to conclude the ecclesial positivist position of "Let the East be the East, and "Latins be Latins." It-may-be-true-for-you-but-not-true-for-me-relativism concerning a matter that is <<<ahem>>> "more than mere discipline." The universal Church cannot be relativist on "more than mere discipline" or doctrine. East and West must be united on matters "more than mere discipline." We can change discipline, yadda, yadda, yadda... A forteriori, then, if we take this theogical relativism at face value, let's let the Latin West be the Latin West for the sake of conversation: If you want the Latins to be Latins, then Selin's statement is actually a case for the 'obligatory' character of continence appearing only in the 4th Century for the Latins to be Latins. That is the tradition of the Latins! Mandated celibacy started in the 4th Century and thus does not preclude legitimately regulating mandated continence discipline on clerics today.

Brumley's position is better to take than Selin's. B admits that celibacy is the 'norm' in the Latin rite but acknowledges that exceptions exist on a case by case basis. Dispensations of married men in the Latin rite priesthood is what Pius XII did BEFORE Vatican II, and Paul VI, JP2, and B16 after Pius. Pius's dispensation, JP2 Pastoral Provision and B16's Ordinariate priests were not expected to be continent. The Church has authority to dispense from celibacy and (thereby dispense from) continence as is the case of Latin permanent deacons. (Dr. Peter's need not be mentioned here at this time, since the Church has the authority to explicitly declare dispensation from continence.) Exceptions to the celibacy norm does not mean abolishing the norm.

The Code of 1983 says that the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church, so if having married Latin priests will save many souls from Hell, then do it, but if it will send souls to Hell then don't do it. But the final analysis is that the Church can regulate as needed. The Church taketh away, but the Church also giveth.

Otherwise, great article. All the best! I'm glad to see a Thomist writing about this issue. JMJ