Will Anglican priests entering the Church be required to embrace celibacy?

That was the question addressed by today's note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

There has been widespread speculation, based on supposedly knowledgeable remarks by an Italian correspondent Andrea Tornielli, that the delay in publication of the Apostolic Constitution regarding Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church, announced on 20 October 2009 by Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is due to more than 'technical' reasons. According to this speculation, there is a serious substantial issue at the basis of the delay, namely, disagreement about whether celibacy will be the norm for the future clergy of the provision.

Cardinal Levada offered the following comments on this speculation: "Had I been asked I would happily have clarified any doubt about my remarks at the press conference. There is no substance to such speculation. No one at the Vatican has mentioned any such issue to me. The delay is purely technical in the sense of ensuring consistency in canonical language and references. The translation issues are secondary; the decision to delay publication in order to wait for the 'official' Latin text to be published in 'Acta Apostolicae Sedis' was made some time ago.

Cardinal Levada goes on to quote from Canon Law, and my father has helpfully blogged about this and explained what's happening in layman's terms. Basically - there's no change to the Church's current norms on celibacy.

Previous AmP posts on the topic of Anglican Reunification are archived here.

Tomorrow: Major announcement on Catholic-Anglican relations?

Papist chatter across the herring pond in England is heating up, with confirmed reports of major simultaneous press conferences taking place tomorrow morning at the Vatican and London.

Damian Thompson gets us the goods - this press release came from the Vatican:

We inform accredited journalists that tomorrow, Tuesday 20 October 2009, at 11am, in the John Paul II Hall of the Press Office of the Holy See, a briefing will be held on a theme pertaining to the relationship with the Anglicans, at which His Eminence Cardinal William Joseph Levada, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and His Excellency Mgr Joseph Augustine Di Noia OP, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments will take part. (Hat-tip, Fr Finigan.)

Meanwhile, this press release came from the Archbishop of Canterbury's office:

You are invited to a press conference with Archbishop Vincent Nichols (Archbishop of Westminster) and Archbishop Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury) on Tuesday 20 October at 1000. The press conference will take place at 39 Eccleston Square, London SW1V 1BX.

For both Cardinal Levada (doctrinal issues) and Abp. Di Noia (liturgy and sacraments) to be involved, you know it has to be significant.

The conference will be taking place in the very early morning hours my time, so when I wake up tomorrow I'll take a look at the news wire and report back.

Biden claim: "I'm a John XXIII guy, I'm not a Pope John Paul guy."

I don't understand how someone can seriously say this about themselves:

"I was raised as a Catholic, I'm a practicing Catholic, and I'm totally at home with the Catholicism that I was raised in and this whole culture of social responsibility, reaction to abuse of power, the whole notion that there is collective civic responsibility. It's the Catholic consciousness that I'm totally comfortable with."

... only to spew this nonsense:

"It is not choice. It's always a very, very, very difficult, difficult decision. I know that, my church has wrestled with this for 2,000 years.

We've always believed from the outset that abortion is wrong. But throughout the years, debated the degree to which it is wrong. There are always cases where it is never a first choice. It is always viewed as a dire decision. But throughout the church's history, we've argued between whether or not it is wrong in every circumstance and the degree of wrong. Catholics have this notion, it's almost a gradation.

We have mortal sins, venial sins, well, up until Pius IX, there were times when we said, 'Look, there are circumstances in which it's wrong but it is not damnation. Along came Pius IX in the 1860s and declared in fine doctrine, this was the first time that it occurred that it was absolute human life and being at the moment of conception. It's always been a debate."

And then conclude by saying:

"I take my religion very seriously."

(... just obviously not enough to study it.)

Oh well, I guess I'm just no Joe Biden.

Another jem:

"I'm a John XXIII guy, I'm not a Pope John Paul guy."

At least that puts him ahead of John Kerry, who claimed he was a "Pope Pius XXIII" kind of guy.

Ph/t: Whispers.

Yes, Early Christians Believed Jesus was God

Shocking what modern archeology has discovered.

(hmm - "modern archeology" - sounds like a contradiction in terms, I realize.)

Hide Baptism Records from Mormons, says Vatican

Because aiding kooky practices doesn't help ecumenism:

In an effort to block posthumous rebaptisms by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Catholic dioceses throughout the world have been directed by the Vatican not to give information in parish registers to the Mormons' Genealogical Society of Utah.

An April 5 letter from the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, obtained by Catholic News Service in late April, asks episcopal conferences to direct all bishops to keep the Latter-day Saints from microfilming and digitizing information contained in those registers.

The order came in light of "grave reservations" expressed in a Jan. 29 letter from the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the clergy congregation's letter said.

Father James Massa, executive director of the U.S. bishops' Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, said the step was taken to prevent the Latter-day Saints from using records -- such as baptismal documentation -- to posthumously baptize by proxy the ancestors of church members.

Posthumous baptisms by proxy have been a common practice for the Latter-day Saints -- commonly known as Mormons -- for more than a century, allowing the church's faithful to have their ancestors baptized into their faith so they may be united in the afterlife, said Mike Otterson, a spokesman in the church's Salt Lake City headquarters

Of note:

The letter is dated 10 days before Pope Benedict XVI's April 15-20 U.S. visit, during which he presided over an ecumenical prayer service attended by two Mormon leaders. It marked the first time Mormons had participated in a papal prayer service.

I don't think one need take their inclusion as any sort of endorsement. This was an ecumenical dialogue, not an inter-christian summit. Mormon baptism is invalid, which renders them non-christian.

update: Utah bishop responds to Vatican policy on Mormons (CWNews)

Christian Post suggests Obama believes "Jesus Christ Not the Only Way to Heaven"

Jennifer Riley interpreting recent comments made by Barack Obama:

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that Jesus Christ is not the only way to heaven during a campaign event in North Carolina.

While answering a question about his Christian faith, Obama said he believes that Jesus Christ died for his sins and through God’s grace and mercy he could have “everlasting life,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

But he also believes Jews and Muslims and non-believers who live moral lives are as much “children of God” as he is, according to The Associated Press.

As an example, he spoke about his late mother who was “not a believer.”

The author seems to imply that Obama's comments should provoke a sharp response from Christians. I think, however, that she is missing a helpful distinction: while it is true that anyone who is saved from original sin is saved only in Jesus Christ, it is not true that every person need explicitly believe that truth in order to be saved.

This teaching answers the quandary posed by the hypothetical "noble pagan" or "noble savage" dilemma ("how can those who never had the opportunity of knowing Jesus Christ be saved from their sin?"). All Catholics can certainly hope that a Jew, Muslim or athiest might be saved in the mercy of Christ, while clearly we should also wish that they might come to know and believe in Jesus Christ if it is possible.

However, when pressed, would Obama say that Jesus is always the unique savior of every human being, even if He is only "clearly perceived in the things that have been made" (Rom 1:20)?

That's a question I can't answer for him.