Thread by @JLLiedl

New #SynodalerWeg 🧵: Vote on the Foundational text: “Priestly existence today.”

Less of an action item, more of a statement of principles. On its second read, which means that this is the final document.

Link to doc: synodalerweg.de/fileadmin/Syno…

Doc says theology/practice of priesthood has been in crisis for decades. Broad consensus that:

- A priesthood that is theoretically reserved for heterosexual men alone seems questionable and not compatible with actual practice.

- The exclusion of women from admission to the priesthood causes consternation, and there is an unmistakeable demand for it to be re-examined.

- There is a widespread lack of acceptance today of celibacy as an obligatory way of life for priests.

- There are loudly-voiced calls for the opportunity for homosexuality to also be discussed among priests.

Clarifying note on procedure:

To be adopted, measure needs 2/3 support from these three groups:

-assembly
-bishops present
-women and “non-binary participants”

“There were as many as 295 in 1990, but by 2020 the number had fallen to a low of 56, 6 representing a decline of as much as around 80%.”

56 ordinations for 22 million German Catholics.

By comparison, my home diocese of St. Paul-Mpls (720k Catholics) ordains ~5 guys every year.

There was an amendment b/c the original text did not really address what the priesthood is and why it is needed…

Big concerns seem to be “gender justice” and getting rid of compulsory celibacy.

We are “on our way to a post-clerical future.”

Priesthood needs to develop because of the demands of gender justice.

Archbishop Heiner Koch says the document shows no appreciation for young men considering the priesthood.

The previous speaker wonder out loud why there is such low levels of attraction to the priesthood…

Bishop Rolf Steinhauser:

Original doc said: Exclusion of women causes consternation and needs to be examined

New version says: Gender-based acceptance is discriminatory and needs to be done away with

Could live with the original, but will vote “no” on changed version.

Bishop Steinhäuser (an auxiliary of Cologne) voted against the “Reassesment of Homosexuality” proposal, and abstained from voting on the "Basic Order of Church Service" text, back in September.

Someone just responded to +Steinhäuser and said “It would be a shame if one formulation ruined an entire text.” A lot of pressure on bishops to accept docs as they are, get clarification later…

Btw, if you want to see which bishops voted against/abstained from texts back in Sept, check out this great @CNAdeutsch report, translated for your convenience:

…catholicnewsagency-com.translate.goog/article/synoda…

Motion that there should be a THIRD reading of the doc, b/c its been changed so much. So not voting on it today. It sounds like it would be taken up instead by the Synodal Committee etc

~80% vote against the amendment for a 3rd read. This means there will be a vote on the Priesthood today.

Now voting on a motion to have NAME BASED voting. 52% are in favor. 47% against. So there will be a vote with the name of the person recorded.

Strange to have protections for dissenting viewpoints be determined by a majority vote.

Here’s how the bishops voted on “Priestly existence” text:

40 approved
12 against
7 abstained

That’s 2/3 bishops. Text adopted.

BUT: the total number of non-approvals (19), is higher than the 15-17 that was typical on controversial measures back in Sept; tho not quite 1/3