Pope Francis proposes female deacons, married priests at Amazon synod
"Pope Francis, rounding out his synod of Amazonian clergy, announced Saturday that he would be reopening a commission to study the history of women as deacons in the early days of the Catholic Church.

A gathering of bishops Saturday also recommended that Francos loosen the celibacy requirement for priests in South America’s Amazon region to address the severe priest shortage"

- foxnews.com/faith-values/pope-francis-women-deacons-amazon-synod

Again headline is decieving. Willing to have a study of historical women deacons does not equal now having women deacons.Article did not say that the Pope gave a position married Priests.

But the final document approves both, with 2/3rd of the bishops there manifesting their heterodoxy in voting for it.

Francis already called a commission to study women deacons that concluded. That he is calling another one doesn't bode well. He has already neglected his duty in confirming his brethren, given active scandal, supervised idolatry. I don't expect anything other than undermining the faith through ambiguity, and selective "pastoral negelect"

The usual anti-Pope Francis nonsense. And the mad dash toward ordaining women and married priests. From the Vatican:

"The synodal document does not have magisterial authority; the conclusions are presented to Pope Francis, who will issue his own document later."

Exactly the point that I was going to make. Ordaining female deacons and married men were suggestions by the bishops at the synod, not the Pope.

And as for the "commission to study female deacons", isn't it clear that this is just a polite Vatican way of saying "hell no?". Instead of saying "you people are nuts" you say "wow, that's an idea that needs to be studied" and you send it to a committee, knowing full well the committee will reject the idea, but it gets the whiner's off your back for a while, it's similar to your parents telling you "I'll think about it" which is just a passive aggressive way of saying "no".

I've been to a women's priest site. They cite what they claim to be "the" reasons for ordaining women, including women deacons in the early Church. Pope Francis is wise to leave no stone unturned to tell them the truth.

I wouldn't call it "wise", it's just a way to make it look like you are following up on their proposal without actually doing anything. It's essentially a policy of appeasement.

He already had such a commission, which already concluded.

Best case scenario he is delaying a house fire and risking the whole block.

Such actions from past popes have went two ways, eventually permitting the illicit behavior, which then becomes de facto the norm (communion in hand, altar girls) or weakening support and strengthening opposition to the eventual declaration of truth followed by refusal to correct those dissenting (contraception, Latin in seminaries)

God protects his Church via human action. And frankly Francis has not only been negligent in his duty of confirming the brethren (it is a moral obligation to discipline dissent), he has promoted error, both in promoting heretics, using them as spokesmen (Ruffini), in approving discipline contrary good morals (Amoris Laetitiae), by continually feeding Scalfari (either Francis is incredibly stupid or he is responsible for the scandal of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th interviews!), by blessing idols etc.

He is not an antipope. But he is a terrible pope.

If the Pope did not want this in the first place, why did he stuff the Synod with heterodox folk who wanted all this? It stinks to high heaven. Dissenters from this program weren't invited.

That is literally my entire point, that promising a "commission" to "study" an issue is a way of politely saying "no". If I were an advocate of women's ordination, I wouldn't be encouraged by the promise of yet another "commission", I would consider it to be condescending and proof that he intends to do nothing, which is exactly what it is. It's not a sign that he takes the proposal seriously, it's the exact opposite.

Politicians in Washington DC do the same thing, Social Security is collapsing? Let's set up a "bipartisan commission" to study the issue, and then ignore all of its suggestions.

Let's reverse the roles here, instead of women's ordination, let's consider an issue like the Latin Mass.

Imagine there was a proposal to suppress the Novus Ordo and return to the Tridentine Mass. In response to the proposal, the Pope appoints a commission to "study" the issue. After a couple years, the commission issues its report and it is strongly negative
A few years later, a synod of bishops again makes the proposal to suppress the Novus Ordo and restore the Tridentine Mass. The Pope does nothing but promise yet another commission to study the issue, a commission which will no doubt reach the same conclusion as the previous one.

Would you conclude from this that the Pope favored the proposal or would you conclude that he was giving you the brush off? Obviously, you would conclude the latter.

My newspaper proclaims, in large font, that the Pope has called for a new road for Catholicism as a result of the Amazonian thing. The new road includes married priest and female deacons.

All in all, the Pope could stop all of the creep of secularism into the Church, but he seems, IMO, to be performing a slow crawl to having the Church become what most other Christian bodies have become.

This speculation is unwarranted. And no, the Church is not some other political organization. Go back to 1967 and see what Pope Paul VI had to deal with:

Amid the modern stirrings of opinion, a tendency has also been manifested, and even a desire expressed, to ask the Church to re-examine this characteristic institution. It is said that in the world of our time the observance of celibacy has come to be difficult or even impossible.

2. This state of affairs is troubling consciences, perplexing some priests and young aspirants to the priesthood; it is a cause for alarm in many of the faithful and constrains Us to fulfill the promise We made to the Council Fathers. We told them that it was Our intention to give new luster and strength to priestly celibacy in the world of today. (1) Since saying this We have, over a considerable period of time earnestly implorred the enlightenment and assistance of the Holy Spirit and have examined before God opinions and petitions which have come to Us from all over the world, notably from many pastors of God's Church.

Some Serious Questions

3. The great question concerning the sacred celibacy of the clergy in the Church has long been before Our mind in its deep seriousness: must that grave, ennobling obligation remain today for those who have the intention of receiving major orders? Is it possible and appropriate nowadays to observe such an obligation? Has the time not come to break the bond linking celibacy with the priesthood in the Church? Could the difficult observance of it not be made optional? Would this not be a way to help the priestly ministry and facilitate ecumenical approaches? And if the golden law of sacred celibacy is to remain, what reasons are there to show that it is holy and fitting? What means are to be taken to observe it, and how can it be changed from a burden to a help for the priestly life?

4. Our attention has rested particularly on the objections which have been and are still made in various forms against the retention of sacred celibacy. in virtue of Our apostolic office We are obliged by the importance, and indeed the complexity, of the subject to give faithful consideration to the facts and the problems they involve, at the same time bringing to them—as it is Our duty and Our mission to do—the light of truth which is Christ. Our intention is to do in all things the will of Him who has called Us to this office and to show what we are in the Church: the servant of the servants of God.


And about women priests, just go back to what Pope John Paul II declared.

Both Cardinal Sarah and Pope Francis are against the idea of loosening the celibacy requirement. Cardinal Sarah:

The proposal contradicts the Second Vatican Council’s teaching, he said, by seeming to separate within the priesthood participation in Christ’s identity as priest, prophet and king.

He added that to ordain married men “would mean in practice to question the obligatory nature of celibacy as such.”

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.”

Cardinal Sarah said “the question is another: to understand the meaning of the priestly vocation. Ask yourself why there are no more people willing to give all of themselves for God, for the priesthood and for virginity.”

He argued that people prefer to think of “ploys,” instead of addressing the larger problems.

everything you guys are saying is generally correct, were the pontiff not a loose cannon.

but he is a loose cannon, and therefore, there is certainly concern to be had.

i understand doom's point about paying lip service with another commission to study it, but PED is not wrong.
if there's already been a commission to study it, and the decision was No, then this ought to be as easy as "we already had a commission study it, and the answer was no." ---- ???

as I see things, simply taking up this question is nothing more than taking into consideration whether or not to treat a symptom, rather than addressing the actual illness.

clerical continence has been the discipline for a THOUSAND years... the Church has been in South America for about 500ish years..... and only NOW is there such a drastic problem getting men to the priesthood that setting aside the discipline and allowing a female diaconate needs to be considered?

SMH.... the problem is the world and the way of man... and placing man's desires above that of God's will.

This is a(nother) stupid synod that is not properly addressing the real problem. It's as if they're trying to trial-and-error this stuff without knowing (more like 'without acknowledging') what is wrong, and not caring what might actually be wrong.
"My car isn't running properly." Mechanic: "Hrmm... maybe we should... ehhh.... put the steering wheel on the right side of the car. A couple of different countries have cars like that. Maybe we should just put that in play here, too?"

Creating an Amazonian Rite --- which I've seen floated --- would be at least a better way of addressing the celibacy issue.

But no... it seems as if at least some number of people (including the pope? I dunno) want this to be foisted upon the Roman Rite.

Yes, the pope can wave a hand and dispense with the discipline in the Roman Rite. With that in mind, and understanding that he could well pull that trigger, I have ZERO confidence that it will address the problem in the Amazon or anywhere else on the planet.... not without severe consequences in any case.

I mean gosh... like being a married priest is going to stop said priest from cheating on his wife? I can hardly wait to see this spark ignite the conflagration just like the Dutch with communion in the hand... The scandal that will exist when 'priestly divorce' becomes the new hot topic.

I can only imagine the lawyers that can hardly wait for the divorces to start, with a chance at making a legal argument over how the CHURCH (or the diocese) provided so much for the priest and his family, that the priest alone could not provide, and how the CHURCH (or the diocese) needs to pay lifetime alimony to keep the woman in a lifestyle to which she had become accustomed.

God, what a mess!

No mess here, just speculation. Cardinal Sarah understands the ploys being used. He has lovingly criticized the Western countries for their almost constant cries of change and the ploys involved. Not too long after Pope John Paul II announced that he wanted his declaration that the Catholic Church had no authority to ordain women to the priesthood to be definitively held by all the all the faithful, a priest on Catholic radio told listeners how he was approached by someone who apparently pretended to not understand the plain meaning of "definitively held." He was asked, "What does definitively held mean?" His response, "Definitively held means definitively held."

For those people who do not want to accept Church teaching or who look to find some loophole to manipulate Church teaching, they want to hear only the answer they want. They want what they want. And they want what the secular world wants. In 1967, there was no priest shortage but Pope Paul VI was hit with questions about priestly celibacy. What? Someone woke up one day and decided the obvious merits needed to be questioned in 1967? The Church was in better shape then.

Dissidents were there then and dissidents are there now. And sometimes they need to hear the word No more than once. And when the Church is challenged to do a study and they, not the Church, are not happy with the results or some detail, sure the Church will go back and do another to quiet all of their doubts. That in spite of themselves and their personal desires which are not about serving the Church or God's people but only about them. If I was the Pope I'd do the same thing so that the matter is settled with no doubts, no ploys and no more games being played by the 'doubters.'

What do you mean it "doesn't bode well"? I fail to see why this possible change could be a problem. Originally priests were allowed to marry, so there is no fundamental reason why priests shouldn't again be allowed to marry. And there are currently some married priests.

And why on earth shouldn't there be women deacons? We are not some separate species, we are as human as men, there is no fundamental reason why women cannot be deacons.

Some people have a psychological problem with change, which shouldn't prevent change when it's beneficial and necessary, which it often is.

*sigh*

There are so many errors in that post I wouldn't know where to start.

Agree.

Start with one thing, either of you, or anyone, point out one error in my post.

Women cannot be deacons anymore than men can have babies.

That doesn't mean men are better and women are worse; it just means we're different.

Yes, same species but with different abilities.

Priests have never been allowed to marry.