This is not the article I'd have written, and I'm not endorsing anything about it in particular--or attacking anything about it in particular--just posting for your consideration. I guess my own view is that the author is too optimistic about certain things, but in general makes a worthwhile point, particularly in the last paragraph.

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2020/the ... l-catholic

A much less optimistic take: https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/o ... rn-returns

Thank you. The Crisis article title is stupid. This Reuters article also uses a wrong word - sidesteps.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope ... SKBN2061FA

The Pope did not step to one side, he did not give his approval. He did uphold celibacy.

The National Catholic Register article does not show that the Pope gave any hint that married priests is an option. Even though this is an opinion piece, I think some editorial guidance should have been applied prior to publication. I cannot see how the author came to the conclusion he did.

What, specifically is false in the Register piece? What, specifically, is misleading about it? By the way it's an opinion piece.

The following is an amended version of my previous post that reflects the thoughtful input of gherkin.


The National Catholic Register article shows a lack of making a logical conclusion about married priests. A reading of the full text of Querida Amazonia does not show that 'married priests' was an option - maybe. A previous statement by Pope Francis, and mentioned in an article in a previous issue of the Register, is shown, in part, below. With respect to the writer, any hint about exceptions to the rule are not there. I hope those reading this article do not start to think that something unusual is going on. There is no evidence of that.


Cardinal Sarah: Ideological Push in Amazon Synod Is an ‘Insult to God’
Cardinal Sarah called the proposal of combating priest shortages in the Amazon by ordaining married, respected men ‘theologically absurd.’ National Catholic Register, Oct. 9, 2019
"Cardinal Sarah said no one fears the viri probati proposal, but the synod will study it and Pope Francis will draw his conclusions, though he noted Francis’ use of a quote from Pope St. Paul VI in a speech in January: “I prefer to give my life before changing the law of celibacy.”'

And reference should be made to the 1967 ordeal Pope Paul VI had to go through over priestly celibacy. The fact is that this is a new attempt at the same goal after decades -

http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/e ... talis.html

I will add that the National (not) Catholic Reporter provided this headline yesterday:

"Francis declines to answer Amazon synod's requests for married priests, women ministers"

Clarity matters.

None of which either answers my two questions or shows that you understand what an opinion piece is. Here's a quick question: supposing the author of the piece wanted to show that there's a pattern to Francis's behavior. (You know, pretend the title of the opinion piece was asserting that there's a pattern, and the latest letter falls into it.) Do you think it would be relevant for the author to mention other documents from Francis as evidence for that pattern? Like, I don't know, AL? For instance?

Anyway, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion about the opinion piece, even if you haven't written to Fr. DeSousa about it to get his take on what he was doing, as anyone could. But you are not entitled to accuse Father of lying and misleading people without providing any evidence for those claims. So either say what, exactly, was false, or retract your claim.

Saying what, exactly, is false will look like this: "the author says that P. But P is false. Here is the evidence that P is false."

It will not look like this: "the author should have included idea P in this article, because I believe he ought to have included idea P in this article, and since I believe he should have included P in this article, but he didn't, he is saying false things."

Is that clear? I like clarity, too.

I never used the word lying. I am disturbed by the linkage with other things as opposed to "Pope Francis said this." I will contact Father DeSousa to get his thinking behind this. To clarify, the subject should have been married priests as its own issue.

Ignore my use of the word 'lying,' then, and concentrate on the word 'false,' which is exactly the word you used. So tell me exactly what he said that was false. Or retract your claim.

I'd edit my initial post to take out 'lying' but at this point it would make a hash of the thread. I had forgotten I used the word at all, because what I'm interested in isn't whether you think he's lying, but whether you can actually say what exactly he said that was false. (I'm ignoring the additional word 'misleading,' of course. Which I'll probably get to eventually.) I'm just looking for factual clarification.

So, again, the format of your answer should be: "Father said P. P is false. Here is the evidence that shows P is false." Anything less than that just won't do.

In other matters: shy do you think it matters in the very least what you think the opinion piece's subject should have been? If you want to see such an opinion piece, why not write one? But what makes you think you get to dictate what someone else's opinion piece should be about? Really.

Let me put it this way. Here is the part that bothered me.

“The way of shaping priestly life and ministry is not monolithic; it develops distinctive traits in different parts of the world,” he wrote, seemingly in support of an exception to the rules for the Amazon (87).

“In the specific circumstances of the Amazon region, particularly in its forests and more remote places, a way must be found to ensure this priestly ministry,” he added (89). “Every effort should be made to ensure that the Amazonian peoples do not lack this food of new life and the sacrament of forgiveness.”

On the other hand, Pope Francis seemed to suggest that the solution to a lack of priests in the Amazon was not the ordination of married men, but a renewed missionary zeal.

“This urgent need leads me to urge all bishops, especially those in Latin America, not only to promote prayer for priestly vocations, but also to be more generous in encouraging those who display a missionary vocation to opt for the Amazon region,” he wrote (90).

---

Reading the full text of Querida Amazonia shows that, in context, there is no hint whatsoever in the first quoted sentence that the Pope was "... seemingly in support of an exception to the rules for the Amazon (87)." And I will add, with all due respect, that this represented a lack of logical thinking on the part of the writer. Later in Querida Amazonia, Pope Francis makes it clear that only the priest can carry out certain functions. The priest as is.

I think this qualifies as poor judgement. An assumption made perhaps out of fear. This should be pointed out. And I will amend my post to reflect this.

Thank you for your observations.

R.R. Reno weighs in with a mixed appraisal. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusi ... tands-firm

Spot on, Doom and Amon




PED, I hope you're pleased you judged this wrongly.

Do you still think so, tango?

Thank you for posting this. The article shows quite clearly that while Catholics can be in Church with their minds on God, outside of Church the 24/7 Voice of the Media tries to put their mind on other things. Having felt this strong atmosphere myself, I can understand how it can create a feeling that the Church herself can be influenced by a media that has become more secular and more profane. The writer either has the personal or historical knowledge to recognize this. Or both.

It should serve as a warning to all Catholics. The Sexual Revolution of the late 1960s was an attempt to promote an alternate secular gospel. Hippies and others appeared in our neighborhoods to promote three things: living with the opposite sex without marriage, sex with anyone and illegal drug use. Now, decades later, the fruit of it, and other events, are clear: abortion is good, contraception is good, sex with anybody is good and let's get marijuana legalized in more states even though the evidence is that people are using marijuana with alcohol and dying in traffic accidents because of this. Is the world these outsiders wanted better? The answer is a clear no. Not better. Time to reconsider time-tested, and Church promoted approaches. Real - authentic - relationships. No sex before marriage. No contraception for birth control, though there may be legitimate medical reasons. And traditional marriage.

I strongly disagree with the following:

"Querida Amazonia is about much more than the controverted question of who can be ordained to the priesthood. Francis speaks about environmental issues in the Amazonian region. As had John Paul II and Benedict XVI, he calls for “dialogue” and a “culture of encounter.” I find these notions off-putting, not just because they are vague, but because they traffic in the clichés of late-modern secular culture in the West. The Church should use her own theological language, not the world’s ersatz spiritual vocabulary."

I find this off-putting as a Catholic also but who is Pope Francis speaking to? People who have learned to think in secular terms mostly, and to dissidents who regardless of their position, have been infected with secular nonsense and developed emotional attachments to certain ideas, or, and this is the heart of the problem, totally believe they are right and the Church is wrong. Finally, the exploitation of the Amazon region by people with money who don't live there and could care less about the people who do. Greed and inflated egos are bad things. But aren't these people also our neighbors who need to hear the truth? The practical "Hey, you better stop doing this because you are affecting the environment and the lives of others." Followed by the spiritual.

The author raises the appropriate concerns well and knows that the walls that guard the Church and her people need to remain strong. The message is that we all need to carefully discriminate between truth, especially spiritual truth, and the garbage being thrown at us by the media. I encourage my fellow Catholics to observe and ignore most of what most media are telling you. It's the best approach as the media continues to "push the envelope" of even more perversion and more distortion.

I applaud the author. Being Catholic needs to be lived every day, not just on Sunday. The media culture has turned its back on the Church.

I didn't judge wrongly, as I made no claim that he would sign off on such. I said ambiguity would rule. The issue isn't over, and we await to see how this will actually play out. So far, not surprised. I am happy he has said as much as he had, but the issue was forced. But we have seen this scene play out before, under Paul VI, even absolute contradiction out of the Vatican, and there is a pattern.

What waits to be seen is not whether Rome will approve female ordination (it won't, and can't), but what happens in response to continued advocacy, and attempts by dissidents like most German bishops.

On celibacy, I am a little surprised, but I think clarity was forced through ecclesial politics. Without Sarah and Benedict who knows.

As to the other provisions, and the theologically deficient statements of the Synod, we will see.

I will be happy if my concerns are allayed. But I was not and am not unfounded or wrong in having said concerns