Bishop Rules Priest Rendered "Unfit" for Priesthood over Campaign for Women Priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter WanderAimlessly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WanderAimlessly

Guest
Bishop Rules Priest Rendered “Unfit” for Priesthood over Campaign for Women Priests

PETERBOROUGH, ON, October 20, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Catholic priest who made public comments regarding his support for a group of women pretending Catholic ordination to the priesthood, has been relieved of his duties as a priest after refusing to recommit to church teaching on the matter. LifeSiteNews.com reported in August that Fr. Edward Cachia gave an interview to a local paper in which he praised the women’s controversial display which took place this past July on a boat on the St. Lawrence river.

Full Story
Click to expand...
We need more of this.

PF
 
40.png
WanderAimlessly:
We need more of this.

PF
Click to expand...
:yup:
 
justme said:
:nope: So full of hate. :nope:
Click to expand...

Yes. Granted, the abuse scandal is an ugly chapter in Church history with little to compare. But the ugliness exibited by the salivating Church-haters at any mistake by her sure gives it a run for the money. Pray for them.

Scott
 
I wish that more Bishops would reign in their self-serving and grossly wayward priests as normal business practice by creating the choice to pledge allegiance to Rome or chose to be relieved of their duties as priest. The priest needs to realize that causing scandal to the flock is not part of his job description. I must say that the secular sector does a much better job in the corporate world to reprimand on limited chances to get with the team/program or else, to borrow from the TV program – “You’re fired!!”
 
We should all write a note to the Bishop thanking him for his courage and commitment to the Church.
 
The man is clearly an unrepentant dissenter (ie, heretic). The local newspapers in his area are almost presenting him as some kind of a folk hero. See:

on Oct. 20

and

on Oct. 21

Among other things, one gleans that this man took the initiative in expressing his approval of the act of defiance that resulted in the simulated sacrament of Holy Orders being bestowed on these women. Also, after the event, he concelebrated with the participants in a pseudo-eucharistic celebration.

Let us all pray that the actions of this faithful Bishop marks the start of firm and faithful action to defend the Catholic faith from those who would see it deconstructed in the name of what they erroneously label as “love”.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Very good, I am listening very good news from american bishops. It´s good.
 
We need more courageous bishops to deal with blatent and scandalizing priests who dissent from church teaching.
 
There is really no reason to exclude women from the priesthood in any Christian Church. The arguments against accepting women are emotive, simply prejudiced, fallacious, self-contradictory, and contradict observed facts as well as certain quotes in the New Testament. The ultra-conservative factions who hurl themselves against Vatican II, let alone the possibility of women deacons, have the attitude of losers. 😦
"Unable to bring the full potential of their senses into the immediate situation, losers’ perceptions are incorrect or incomplete. They see themselves and others through a prism-like distortion. Their ability to deal effectively with the real world is hampered.
"Losers spend much of their time … manipulating and perpetuating old roles from childhood…"Losers often repeat not only their own mistakes, but often those of their own family and culture as well. Losers’ energies are often channeled into living up to the expectations of others…rationalizing …to make their actions seem plausible. " (p.5-6)
–from “Born To Win”; Muriel James, Ed.D. and Dorothy Jongeward, Ph.D.; Addison-Wesley Inc., Reading, Mass.,USA, 1971.

“What is truth?” -Pontius Pilate 😦
 
Mark & Marilyn:
There is really no reason to exclude women from the priesthood in any Christian Church. The arguments against accepting women are emotive, simply prejudiced, fallacious, self-contradictory, and contradict observed facts as well as certain quotes in the New Testament. The ultra-conservative factions who hurl themselves against Vatican II, let alone the possibility of women deacons, have the attitude of losers. 😦
"Unable to bring the full potential of their senses into the immediate situation, losers’ perceptions are incorrect or incomplete. They see themselves and others through a prism-like distortion. Their ability to deal effectively with the real world is hampered.
"Losers spend much of their time … manipulating and perpetuating old roles from childhood…"Losers often repeat not only their own mistakes, but often those of their own family and culture as well. Losers’ energies are often channeled into living up to the expectations of others…rationalizing …to make their actions seem plausible. " (p.5-6)
–from “Born To Win”; Muriel James, Ed.D. and Dorothy Jongeward, Ph.D.; Addison-Wesley Inc., Reading, Mass.,USA, 1971.

“What is truth?” -Pontius Pilate 😦
Click to expand...
I am sorry you feel this way, but the Vatican has seen it differently.

PF
 
Mark & Marilyn:
There is really no reason to exclude women from the priesthood in any Christian Church. The arguments against accepting women are emotive, simply prejudiced, fallacious, self-contradictory, and contradict observed facts as well as certain quotes in the New Testament. The ultra-conservative factions who hurl themselves against Vatican II, let alone the possibility of women deacons, have the attitude of losers. 😦
"Unable to bring the full potential of their senses into the immediate situation, losers’ perceptions are incorrect or incomplete. They see themselves and others through a prism-like distortion. Their ability to deal effectively with the real world is hampered.
"Losers spend much of their time … manipulating and perpetuating old roles from childhood…"Losers often repeat not only their own mistakes, but often those of their own family and culture as well. Losers’ energies are often channeled into living up to the expectations of others…rationalizing …to make their actions seem plausible. " (p.5-6)
–from “Born To Win”; Muriel James, Ed.D. and Dorothy Jongeward, Ph.D.; Addison-Wesley Inc., Reading, Mass.,USA, 1971.

“What is truth?” -Pontius Pilate 😦
Click to expand...
Man is head of the family. And furthermore men only in the priesthood keeps the bride-groom/bride imagery in mind. To do otherwise would induce a lesbain relationship.
 
. The ultra-conservative factions who hurl themselves against Vatican II, let alone the possibility of women deacons, have the attitude of losers. 😦
"Losers spend much of their time … manipulating and perpetuating old roles from childhood…"Losers often repeat not only their own mistakes, but often those of their own family and culture as well.

With regard to the first sentence. Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict helped write the documents of Vatican II, and both are opposed to women priests.

With regard to the second.
Do you really think that Jesus made a mistake when he didn’t chose women to be apostles?
 
Mark & Marilyn:
There is really no reason to exclude women from the priesthood in any Christian Church.
Click to expand...
Yes there is. Constant and infallible Church teaching.
The arguments against accepting women are emotive, simply prejudiced, fallacious, self-contradictory, and contradict observed facts as well as certain quotes in the New Testament.
Click to expand...
Easy to state. Difficult to establish.
The ultra-conservative factions who hurl themselves against Vatican II, let alone the possibility of women deacons, have the attitude of losers. 😦
Click to expand...
Yeah. 2000 years and the Church has been victorious over any of the silly doctrinal novelties that came down the pike. What a bunch of losers. :rolleyes:
Code: 
  "Unable to bring the full potential of their senses into the immediate situation, losers' perceptions are incorrect or incomplete. They see themselves and others through a prism-like distortion. Their ability to deal effectively with the real world is hampered.
     "Losers spend much of their time ... manipulating and perpetuating old roles from childhood...."Losers often repeat not only their own mistakes, but often those of their own family and culture as well. Losers' energies are often channeled into living up to the expectations of others...rationalizing ...to make their actions seem plausible. " (p.5-6)
      --from "Born To Win"; Muriel James, Ed.D. and Dorothy Jongeward, Ph.D.; Addison-Wesley Inc., Reading, Mass.,USA, 1971.
Click to expand...
“What is truth?” -Pontius Pilate 😦
Click to expand...
Gratuitous. Notice when one has no case, we get psychobabble. For an actual reasoned argument read Ordination Is Not a Right unless of course one believes reason itself is a tool of oppression from the patriarchal hegemony. :rolleyes:

Scott
 
Reminders:

The topic of this thread is the action of a bishop against a dissident priest, not whether women should be ordained.

Please stay on topic. Do not respond to bad posts; report them instead.

Since well over half the posts made on this thread have had to be deleted, one more bad post and the thread will disappear.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Walt
 
I have read these articles and am amazed at how all these other topics (feminism, homosexuality, new age, etc.) can insinuate themselves into the situation, when is it simply about obedience. It seems to be me the Bishop handled it well, and did not let this priest use his position as a springboard for these other agendas.

The shame is that the Chruch gets smaller when it loses a leader this way. If the Holy Spirits brings him back, I doubt the media will notice, but I hope it does. I notice the Bishop did not say the priest was no longer Catholic, just that he would not serve as a priest. There is a note of mercy there, not to metion the months of warning.
 
Technically, the bishop was correct (at the surface level): It’s arguably like a junior manager being hired on the understanding that he will abide by company policy; years later, he refuses to abide by company policy on some issue or controversy, and after some warnings his bosses dismiss him.
Code: 
 But some related questions are:  (and the writer does not feel they are irrelevant)...
   1. Is the company policy itself  absolutely right and justified?
   2. Do the underlying assumptions and theories upon which the company policy is based, make sense?  Are they essentially valid and sound?

   good food for thought.  ;)       Marilyn
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top