Celibacy on the Amazon

Apparently, Pope Emeritus Benedict and Cardinal Sarah have co-authored a book advocating for priestly celibacy. Whether it is intended to or not, the timing of the book's publication appears to weigh in on deliberations of the Amazon Synod, which recommended a relaxation of the discipline of priestly celibacy for certain South American pastoral situations.

Many in the self-appointed Catholic "traditionalist" world have applauded this work as an important contribution. This reaction shows a stunning lack of knowledge on the part of Catholic "traditionalists" concerning Catholic Faith. Neither of these men are the Pope, thus their opinions, whether they contradict or affirm the Pope Francis' eventual decision, are completely irrelevant. Insofar as they confirm Pope's opinion, they violate the dignity of the papacy, who is first among bishops. It is the Pope's role to teach, the bishops' role to collegially (not publicly) advise the Pope and disseminate the teachings.

The Pope speaks first. These men have not the right to usurp the papal function, even if they are right. And, of course, if they are wrong, then, by the gravity of the stations they hold, they give scandal and promote disunity in the Church.

The Amazon Synod has no teaching authority, nor does any other synod, nor does any group of bishops not in formal council. The Amazon Synod was a group of South American bishops and their representatives, called together by the Pope, whose job it was to advise the Pope on their pastoral and catechetical difficulties in the region. The Pope himself spent his entire life in that same region, working with those same problems. It was a group of local experts advising a local expert on what they felt was the best way to handle a set of situations they face.

Cardinal Sarah has no experience in the Amazon region. Pope Emeritus Benedict may have had skilled and knowledgeable advisors to consult with while he was Pope, but he no longer has access to that level of information, nor has he had for years. So, we are meant to compare the opinions of two men whose knowledge is, respectively, little and none, to the opinions of men who are well-versed in the subject area. This is a clear violation of the principle of subsidiarity (CCC 1883), the idea that those closest to a situation should make the necessary decisions concerning that situation. 

You may claim Cardinal Sarah and Pope Emeritus are simply trying to awaken the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful, CCC 91-93)  which is also a valid expression of the Magisterium. In fact, the sensus fidelium is a perfectly valid, if often forgotten, infallible expression of the Ordinary Magisterium. But the sensus fidelium is not astro-turf. It bubbles up organically from the faithful themselves, it does not need ordained men to stir the pot.

Insofar as this may be a public attempt to sway the Pope's decision, it is completely outrageous and a serious breach of discipline. The Pope speaks first. Instead of allowing the Pope to speak first, these two have arrogated to themselves the right to try to influence the faithful, possibly in contradiction to the Pope. Unless they have certain knowledge of how the Pope will rule, they have no business speaking now. And if they had such certain knowledge, then why did they frame their book as an appeal to the Pope? That line of deduction cannot hold. This book should not have been published at this time, or even at all. These conversations should be had in private with the Pope as advisors, not in public.

You may claim that St. Paul publicly remonstrated St. Peter on the matter of eating with Gentiles. True, he did. But St. Peter had not given a formal teaching on how that particular discipline was to be lived. He simply gave a lived example, with no indication that he was going to give a public decision on the matter.

Sarah and Benedict are publicly "teaching" when they KNOW the Pope is soon going to give a public decision. It is no different than the Judaizers publicly teaching that all must be circumcised, even though they knew Pope Peter was going to rule on the matter, but had not yet done so.

Two quote a few commentators:

Why is a discipline suitable in Belarus, the Melkite Churches and Ukraine (and sanctioned by the Council in trullo a theological and pastoral threat in Africa and South America?

And again:

Sarah asserts that "ordaining married men would be a pastoral catastrophe, lead to ecclesiological (sic) confusion, and obscure our understanding of the priesthood." But he also claims "the Evangelical Protestants are sometimes more faithful to Christ than we are.” If  marriage has not been a "catastrophe" for the ability of Evangelical Protestants to be faithful, or to evangelize in undeveloped countries, what's the basis for Sarah's argument?

The ordination of married men in the Anglican Ordinariate was already permitted by Pope St. John Paul II before Benedict took office. Insofar as this book interferes in Pope Francis' decision, or contradicts it, this book at best questions papal authority and, at worst, may well serve to bolster a schismatic movement in the Church which Catholic "traditionalists" have already begun. It is a completely irresponsible move. These men are using the gravity of their respective offices to make more difficult a decision that is proper to papal authority.

Idolatry of a discipline is stupid. In Christian charity, we can only assume this is a sign of approaching dementia on Benedict's part.

UPDATE:
You know, there is one other possibility. It's possible that Pope Emeritus Benedict and Cardinal Sarah ran the publication of this book past Pope Francis, and received his permission to go ahead with publication. Pope Francis is famous for encouraging a broad, full conversation on topics. He may well be interested in seeing of Benedict and Sarah can astro-turf the Church. As indicated above, the very fact that this book is in print at this time rather strongly indicates that Pope Francis is seriously considering dispensing with clerical celibacy in certain Amazonian regions.  It seems unlikely that the faithful, apart from the rather fringe "traditionalists" are going to get upset about such a dispensation.

Don't get me wrong. The discipline of priestly celibacy has borne enormous fruits through the millennia, and it is a wonderful discipline. It would be a shame to see it go. But, ultimately, disciplines change. The Church abides.

UPDATE 2:
Well, it looks like Fr. Fessio, former pupil of Pope Benedict and CEO of Ignatius Press, conspired with Cardinal Sarah to mis-represent Pope Benedict as co-author of the book. Hilarious.

If I had to guess, I would bet Fr. Fessio is having trouble meeting payroll, so he decided to "publish" another Benedict book, as he has exclusive rights to Benedict's work, and those royalties are reliable income streams. Cardinal Sarah went along with it because it increases his stature as well. Win-win, or so they thought. There is no way Fessio didn't know the authorship status of that book before he published.