That's definitely odd.ialmisry said:I seem to recall a few years back that the Maronites wanted to revive their married clergy. Only one of their bishops voted for celibacy. The Vatican, however, required absolute unanimity.Deacon Lance said:DMD,
I see your "Why do the Popes keep appointing Latin-rite Italian cardinals to manage the Congregation for the Oriental Churches?" and raise you a "Why not abolish the Oriental Congregation altogether?" It is simply not needed.
I have no doubt that internal pressure within the Latin Church to get rid of mandatory celibacy is the driving reason behind the current situation for Eastern Catholic Churches. However, the Greek Catholics are the only ones pushing the issue. The Oriental Catholic Churches seem all to happy to have only celibates in the US. Indeed, the Syro-Malabars and Syro-Malankars have adopted mandatory celibacy, and the Copts, Ethiopians and Syriacs seem to favor it. The Armenians, Chaldeans, and Maronites while not moving toward celibacy seem to be okay with the status quo in the US.
Here's something else I found that's curious:
Now, the wording is strange for a number of reasons (Why does it say "not strictly required" rather than "not required"? Also, are there no married Maronite deacons in North America?) but most importantly, does this imply that celibacy is not (strictly) required for Maronite priests in e.g. South America? (A lot of Maronites live in South America.)Celibacy is not strictly required for Maronite deacons and priests outside of North America with parishes