Capital "T" or Small "t"?

Hat tip to Amy Welborn.

Stacy Meichtry of the National Catholic Reporter has covered the Bishops Synod on the Eucharist and filed this report on October 3, 2005. Among the intrigue was a "a coarse exchange late Monday between Cardinal Angelo Scola of Venice, the general relator of the synod, and Melkite Patriarch Gregoire III Laham:"

“Celibacy has no theological foundation” in the priesthood, Laham said, responding to an opening speech by Scola that cited “profound theological motives” for not allowing married men to enter the priesthood.

“In the Eastern Church married priests are admitted,” Laham said, adding that “marriage is a symbol of union between Christ and the church.”

Responding to Laham, Scola asserted that “in the Latin church theological reasons exist” for maintaining the policy on celibacy. He did not elaborate on those reasons. He then added, “The synod is a place to explore the Mystery, not to give directions on its use.”

In his opening remarks, Scola reported that some bishops proposed that priest-deprived regions be permitted to ordain exemplary married men, which theologians refer to as “proven men,” or “viri probati” in Latin.

Scola suggested the synod focus instead on finding “criteria for an adequate distribution of clergy in the world.” He also appeared to play down the urgency of the priest shortage, saying that the church could not function as a “business” out to meet a “determined quota.”

During the free discussion that closed Monday’s session of the synod, Roberto Camilleri Azzopardo of Comayaga, Honduras, reported having one priest for every 16,000 Catholics in his diocese.

According to the synod working paper, the Instrumentum Laboris, the average Catholic diocese had one priest for every 2,677 Catholics in 2003 -- a significant downturn from 1978 when the ratio was one to 1,797.

The Synod Fathers will have many disagreements. Their responsibility to their local Church demands nothing less than an honest dialogue. That may occasion disagreements between Bishops. The Catholic Church is far from a lock-step movement, stereo-types of the MSM aside. Therefore, Sheperds may have conflicting views of the Tradition.

That's fine. They will work out their differences. That's one of the reasons a Pope calls a Synod. Note what the Code of Canon Law has to say:

Can. 342 The synod of Bishops is a group of Bishops selected from different parts of the world, who meet together at specified times to promote the close relationship between the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops. These Bishops, by their counsel, assist the Roman Pontiff in the defense and development of faith and morals and in the preservation and strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline. They also consider questions concerning the mission of the Church in the world.

Can. 343 The function of the synod of Bishops is to discuss the matters proposed to it and set forth recommendations. It is not its function to settle matters or to draw up decrees, unless the Roman Pontiff has given it deliberative power in certain cases; in this event, it rests with the Roman Pontiff to ratify the decisions of the synod. (Emphasis mine.)

Now, why did Pope Benedict XVI call this particular Synod of Bishops? Well, according to NCR's John Allen in his Word from Rome:

First, the subject, "The Eucharist: Source and Summit of the Life and Mission of the Church," undeniably touches upon a cornerstone of the life and faith of Roman Catholicism. Benedict XVI has repeatedly identified the Eucharist as a key focal point for his own teaching, as well as the principal foundation for his efforts at Christian unity.

The pope will listen to the testimony of his brother Bishops. Then, he'll decide how best to respond to their reflections on the Eucharist and all the dimensions related to it. A quarrel between Bishops does not spell a scandal for the Church.

I'm hoping that NCR is not hunting for such a scandal in this Synod. I'm sure they have a dog in the hunt regarding the priest shortage: They're on the record as supporting married priests. Still, wouldn't it benefit them as a newspaper if they actually covered the Synod, rather than skirt the activist line by leading the coverage?

Nah, that would be too legitimate an exercise in journalism. How would that move the Agenda along?

How Foolish of me: I expected a news story!