Catholic cardinal allowed non-Catholic ordination in his cathedral?

[PRmerger]

Recently a comment was left on my blog “3 minute Apologetics” from a traditionalist Catholic who stated that Cardinal Dinardo of Houston had permitted a Methodist group use of the Houston cathedral to perform an ordination.

Is this true?

I can’t find any source for this except for a hateful, anti-Catholic traditionalist website that references this.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

That should not be a surprise. Lutherans have used Roman Catholic cathedrals to hold Mass and ordain priests in America and Europe. The reason is that cathedrals are larger and can accommodate more people.

 

[pablope]

Recently a comment was left on my blog “3 minute Apologetics” from a traditionalist Catholic who stated that Cardinal Dinardo of Houston had permitted a Methodist group use of the Houston cathedral to perform an ordination.

Is this true?

I can’t find any source for this except for a hateful, anti-Catholic traditionalist website that references this.

Could it be this…and was mistaken?

Latest News The Daily Vine
5/2/2013
Former Episcopal Priests in Houston to Be Ordained Catholic Priests
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013, Two Former Episcopal Priests in Houston to Be Ordained Catholic Priests: Laurence Gipson was rector of St. Martin’s Episcopal in Houston for Nearly 14 Years; and Scott Blick, who served for 35 years in Episcopal ministry, including 16 years in Houston.

 

[PRmerger]

That should not be a surprise. Lutherans have used Roman Catholic cathedrals to hold Mass and ordain priests in America and Europe. The reason is that cathedrals are larger and can accommodate more people.

Interesting. I did not know this.

I certainly don’t have a problem with this in general.

But according to the traditionalist website a woman “bishop” gave the homily. I am uncomfortable with this. The bishop part. Not the fact that she preached.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There are provisions in the GIRM when a church is used in a non-Liturgical, even non-Catholic function.

 

[PRmerger]

Could it be this…and was mistaken?

Latest News The Daily Vine
5/2/2013
Former Episcopal Priests in Houston to Be Ordained Catholic Priests
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013, Two Former Episcopal Priests in Houston to Be Ordained Catholic Priests: Laurence Gipson was rector of St. Martin’s Episcopal in Houston for Nearly 14 Years; and Scott Blick, who served for 35 years in Episcopal ministry, including 16 years in Houston.

I don’t think so.

Here’s the link to the (anti-Catholic) Traditionalist site that I found: novusordowatch.org/wire/houston-we-have-a-problem.htm

 

[pablope]

I don’t think so.

Here’s the link to the (anti-Catholic) Traditionalist site that I found: novusordowatch.org/wire/houston-we-have-a-problem.htm

Ah…okay.

This is what I found in another link:

The Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart is the cathedral (with episcopal chair) in the city of Houston, co-equal to the basilica cathedral in the city of Galveston in what is now the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. (The basilica cathedral in Galveston has been closed for repairs since 2009.) The Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston is the 11th largest diocese in the United States.

On 1 June 2013, the Co-Cathedral hosted the ordination of one Catholic to the priesthood.

The archbishop of Galveston-Houston is Daniel Cardinal DiNardo. The rector of the Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart is the Reverend Father Lawrence Jozwiak.

Here is a response from our friends at the Canon Law Centre:

… the legal prescription of canon 755, further specified by the 1993 Directory promulgated by the Holy See, leaves open the possibility of the diocesan bishop granting permission to a non-Catholic group to use a Catholic building in his territory for a non-Catholic religious ceremony. In the absence of any clearly defined criteria as to what ceremonies to allow and which not to allow, the diocesan bishop is afforded a rather wide ranging discretion as to what he will or will not permit in his diocese. In this regard there is a great disparity existing among individual bishops as to the implementation of this norm. This is evidenced, inter alia, by the current example of a situation which obviously has given rise to scandal among the faithful, and the recent prohibition of the Bishop of Fribourg in which he refused to grant access to the Priestly Society of St. Pius X to use a parish church within the territory of his diocese. Interestingly enough, Bishop Morerod also cited no. 137 of the 1993 Directory as supporting his decision. I leave it to the readership to draw their own conclusions.

And here…ronconte.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/the-sin-of-scandal-at-the-houston-co-cathedral/

This past Tuesday, May 28th, at 7 pm, the diocese permitted the Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church to hold a “Service of Commissioning & Ordination” at the Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, with “Bishop Janice R. Huie preaching”. Here is the official description of the event from the UMC.

According to Catholic teaching, women cannot be ordained as priests or bishops. Also, the United Methodist Church and other Protestant Churches do not have a valid Sacrament of Holy Orders, even for men. So “Bishop Janice R. Huie” is neither a bishop, nor ordained, nor does she have the ability to ordain anyone else.

Looks like it deed happen…

But we do not know the other side of the story…just one side.

 

[Lancer]

Hope this helps.
Pax Christi

**PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM AD CHRISTIANORUM UNITATEM FOVENDAM

DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF
PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM**

**Sharing Other Resources for Spiritual Life and Activity
**

1. Catholic churches are consecrated or blessed buildings which have an important theological and liturgical significance for the Catholic community. They are therefore generally reserved for Catholic worship. However, if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan Bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services. Under similar circumstances, permission may be given to them for interment or for the celebration of services at Catholic cemeteries.

On March 25th, 1993, His Holiness Pope John Paul II approved this Directory, confirmed it by his authority and ordered that it be published. Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

Vatican City
March 25th, 1993

Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy
President

• Pierre Duprey
  Tit. Bishop of Thibar
  Secretary

​

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html

 

[VanSensei]

Personally, I think it’s very charitable and an act of Christian brotherhood.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It did happen. It’s caused quite a stir in the Roman Catholic community in Houston (from which come many of my friends).

 

[Peter_J]

It’s caused quite a stir in the Roman Catholic community in Houston (from which come many of my friends).

Did they say why?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

A while back there was a thread about something similar, that being non-Catholics using Catholic Churches to get married. I inquired as to whether the Catholic Church investigated the non-Catholics freedom to marry, because all non-Catholics (at least that I’m aware of) allow divorce and remarriage in some circumstances. Therefore the possibility of allowing an invalid ceremony, and thus mortal sin, is real.

In a marriage ceremony, we can easily stick our heads in sand and assume the marriage is valid if it is between a man and a woman. In the case of a woman being ordaining (or homosexuals marrying, etc.), their is no doubt to the invalidity. IMHO, such scandalous “ceremonies” should not take place in a Catholic Church. If it happened, or was going to happen, at my Church, I’d strongly object to the person that granted such permission. As Catholics, laity or not, it is our duty to object to such things.

 

[Peter_J]

A while back there was a thread about something similar, that being non-Catholics using Catholic Churches to get married. I inquired as to whether the Catholic Church investigated the non-Catholics freedom to marry, because all non-Catholics (at least that I’m aware of) allow divorce and remarriage in some circumstances. Therefore the possibility of allowing an invalid ceremony, and thus mortal sin, is real.

In a marriage ceremony, we can easily stick our heads in sand and assume the marriage is valid if it is between a man and a woman. In the case of a woman being ordaining (or homosexuals marrying, etc.), their is no doubt to the invalidity. IMHO, such scandalous “ceremonies” should not take place in a Catholic Church. If it happened, or was going to happen, at my Church, I’d strongly object to the person that granted such permission. As Catholics, laity or not, it is our duty to object to such things.

I see what you mean.

In short, there’s a question of what non-Catholic Christian ceremonies should a bishop “lend” out a church building for, and where exactly a line should be drawn. I doubt there will ever be an easy answer to that, but I’d like to suggest: in view of the fact that many Catholics are still fairly uncomfortable with Canon 137, and given that these occasions are natural opportunities for attacks from “traditionalist Catholics”, it seems to me that it would be wise for bishops to only lend out church building for traditional/conventional Christian ceremonies – excluding, for example, ordination of a woman (or by a woman).

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I see what you mean.

In short, there’s a question of what non-Catholic Christian ceremonies should a bishop “lend” out a church building for, and where exactly a line should be drawn. I doubt there will ever be an easy answer to that, but I’d like to suggest: in view of the fact that many Catholics are still fairly uncomfortable with Canon 137, and given that these occasions are natural opportunities for attacks from “traditionalist Catholics”, it seems to me that it would be wise for bishops to only lend out church building for traditional/conventional Christian ceremonies – excluding, for example, ordination of a woman (or by a woman).

Good point. How much influence do the “traditionalists” have on the Catholic Church? Someone posted a link to one of their sites; to say that they were angry is putting it lightly. Some even attack the popes.

 

[PRmerger]

Good point. How much influence do the “traditionalists” have on the Catholic Church? Someone posted a link to one of their sites; to say that they were angry is putting it lightly. Some even attack the popes.

Not much influence, from what I can gather. Their agenda is so obvious that it’s hard to influence opinions when one’s arguments are posited with such vitriol.

 

[Peter_J]

Old news, but may interest you all anyhow:

Episcopal Church Dissed in Two Consecration Venues

Catholic Church says no to TEC in Alaska
Baptist Church says no in Albuquerque

By David W. Virtue and Mary Ann Mueller
www.virtueonline.org
August 14, 2010

 

[PRmerger]

A fair assessment of the story:

catholicworldreport.com/Item/2332/ecumenism_and_canon_law.aspx#.Ubzmy_nrxyV

Originally posted in the above source: That being said, however, I nonetheless believe that the faithful legitimately may disagree with the cardinal’s decision, provided that they do so respectfully and responsibly (cf. can. 212 §§2&3). My own opinion is that, under current law, there is no difficulty in making a church available to visiting Methodists for a regular Sunday or weekday service (cf. can. 1210; ED, §137).

 

[Cavaradossi]

Did they say why?

A combination of several factors. The biggest of course, is that the ordination involved ordaining a female, and this contradicts current magisterial teaching on the priesthood (though considering the dubious validity of the ordaining group’s Holy Orders, I’m not so sure that the gender of the candidate for ordination should matter much on a rational level).

The second factor is the philosophical outlook of my friends, who have mostly traditionalist tendencies. They reject the conservative Catholic approach as fundamentally flawed (I remember having a discussion with you on another board about the difference between traditionalist, conservative, and liberal Catholics, so I think our terminology here matches). They view Vatican II as being perhaps only quasi-ecumenical, and in need of being reinterpreted in consonance with the Roman Catholic tradition before it can truly be considered as ecumenical without reservation (for this reason, they have a great affinity for the previous pope, Benedict XVI and the idea of the hermeneutic of continuity). They are all, of course, faithful Roman Catholics who do not dissent from the dogmatic teachings of Roman Catholic Church, but they do not completely follow the current teaching of the magisterium as to how the Tradition and Vatican II should be interpreted, and hence, they are somewhere between traditionalists and conservatives, I guess.

Anyway, as you might suspect, all of this makes for some interesting conversations at dinner over a few beers, especially with the mixture of Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics in our circle of friends (many of whom are quite well versed in philosophy, theology and patristics).

 

[Peter_J]

A combination of several factors. The biggest of course, is that the ordination involved ordaining a female, and this contradicts current magisterial teaching on the priesthood (though considering the dubious validity of the ordaining group’s Holy Orders, I’m not so sure that the gender of the candidate for ordination should matter much on a rational level).

The second factor is the philosophical outlook of my friends, who have mostly traditionalist tendencies. They reject the conservative Catholic approach as fundamentally flawed (I remember having a discussion with you on another board about the difference between traditionalist, conservative, and liberal Catholics, so I think our terminology here matches). They view Vatican II as being perhaps only quasi-ecumenical, and in need of being reinterpreted in consonance with the Roman Catholic tradition before it can truly be considered as ecumenical without reservation (for this reason, they have a great affinity for the previous pope, Benedict XVI and the idea of the hermeneutic of continuity). They are all, of course, faithful Roman Catholics who do not dissent from the dogmatic teachings of Roman Catholic Church, but they do not completely follow the current teaching of the magisterium as to how the Tradition and Vatican II should be interpreted, and hence, they are somewhere between traditionalists and conservatives, I guess.

Anyway, as you might suspect, all of this makes for some interesting conversations at dinner over a few beers, especially with the mixture of Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics in our circle of friends (many of whom are quite well versed in philosophy, theology and patristics).

From my experience, it seems that a very high percentage of Catholics who discuss these kinds of events (or “incidents”) are traditionalists – although this thread is an exception. It’s nice to see a few non-“traditionalist” Catholics talking about it.

Plus, I think a very high percentage of such conversations are about specific cases where there’s something controversial or scandalous – like a female bishop or a gay-rights advocate, and/or where the invitation is given and then rescinded (which tends to go hand in hand with “female bishop or a gay-right advocate”). Less controversial cases tend, it seems, to be largely unknown except by those in the immediate area (if even them). So, unfortunately, I think quite a lot of Catholics have learned to associate church-sharing with scandal.

 

[fbl9]

I don’t have a problem with what happened in the op. Provided that the Blessed Sacrament was removed prior. But I can see how some would feel it is a scandal. For it could be taken that the Church/Cardinal approved of the actions taking place.