[RKBA Democrat]

"At the end of this synod, this topic will shrivel and die on the vine, just as it has in previous synods."

I don't think so. I think it might die as a topic in the western church, because a married priesthood simply hasn't been the tradition of the western church. But I would not be surprised if at the end of the synod we see a sudden end to rules in some of the eastern churches that still disallow married priests in the U.S. and Canada.

[NYer]

I would not be surprised if at the end of the synod we see a sudden end to rules in some of the eastern churches that still disallow married priests in the U.S. and Canada.

Doubtful. Aren't they required to comply with the regulations of the predominant Latin Church in this country? Not sure what the proper term is but someone pointed this out to me yesterday after Divine Liturgy.

Then too, given the examples submitted by Patriarch Sfeir, why would any Eparchy take on the financial burden of married priests and their children. As Sfeir noted, "celibacy is the jewel of the Catholic Church" ... and he is right.

[Campion]

But I would not be surprised if at the end of the synod we see a sudden end to rules in some of the eastern churches that still disallow married priests in the U.S. and Canada.

Those rules should never have been enacted, represent a breach of trust between Rome and the East, and violate the Vatican II decree on the eastern churches. They ought to die a richly-deserved death.

Just my opinion. :-)