Excommunication looms for American Maryknoll active in 'Womanpriest' rites

[Rob_in_Oregon]

Another thing:

Dissenters and heretics are not going to avoid judgment by saying, “I was only following my conscience.”

It is only a PROPERLY FORMED conscience that is a valid justification for one’s beliefs and behavior. The Maryknoll priest had many years of opportunity to learn the truth and inform his conscience, as have other rebels.

I’ll bet the world’s greatest murderers (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.) were not troubled by conscience. They firmly believed they were doing the right thing. Feelings can deceive.

Once you leave the realm of Church teaching, you’re adrift and can wander far from the truth.

Sorry to sound harsh. Let’s continue our prayers for sinners…

• Rob in Oregon

 

[flameburns623]

ritthichai:

There IS room in the Catholic Church for dissent. IowaMike may well be a borderline rad-trad who thinks anyone who isn’t in absolute lockstep with his particular reading of the current Magisterial temperature is simply a heretic. I don’t want to make this a personal attack on Mike–he and I agree far more than we disagree. I don’t look for nor do I want radical change in the RCC–if I wanted the sorts of things Father Roy Bourgeois is propounding, I’d have stayed Episcopalian. Heck, I would’ve been a member of the mainstream Episcopal Church instead of one of it’s AMiA splinter groups!

However–dissent IS possible and at times it HAS played a role in changing the direction of the Church. See for example this article:

uscatholic.org/church/2008/07/catholic-dissent-when-wrong-turns-out-be-right

The fact is, “that which is not of faith is sin” (Roman 14:23), so that even a badly-formed conscience must be obeyed until such time–if ever–that a person can properly form themselves. Vatican II says clearly:

. . . “In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious.” . . . (Declaration on Religious Freedom, No. 3)

Aquinas said: “If one professes faith in Christ when he has come to the conclusion that it is wrong, then he sins against his conscience”. Cardinal Newman in turn has said, “I have always firmly held that obedience to one’s conscience, even if the conscience is erroneous, is the best way to the light”.

This does not mean that I believe that dissent from the teachings of the Church should be frequent or habitual. I have come to believe the Church is established by Christ to be the primary conduit of truth, and has a special charism preserving Her from error. This does not mean that the living or current Magisterium cannot err, cannot depart from the sensus fidelium of the Church as She has believed throughout the centuries. I just don’t think the Church, or the living Magisterium does so regularly or often.

Nor do I think She has done so specifically on the issue of the ordination of women.

Nor am I personally convinced that Fr. Bourgeois or his kind usually do the hard work that one ought to put in to ensure they have done all in their power to rightly form their consciences.

Even Richard P. McBrien acknowledges that, “It is taken for granted that the Church’s moral teaching is normally a source for positive illumination for the Christian in forming his or her conscience”, (Catholicism–Study Edition, page 1004, Richard P. McBrien, Harper & Row, paperback edition, copyright 1981).

And a somewhat more-conservative interpretation of Catholic teaching, albeit prior to the CCC, says, “. . . There may be extraordinary situations in which a Catholic, after sincere attempts and discussions with theological teachers, cannot make his own some authoritative, non-infallible teaching . . .; he cannot reconcile it with his grasp of the total gospel preached by the Church. He should then tell his convictions to his spiritual leaders and responsibly work toward a revision of the Church’s position . . .However, because ignorance or selfish motives may cause one to form an erroneous conscience, there is always a need to try to form one’s conscience to the teaching of the Church”, (page 155, Christ Among Us: A Modern Presentation of the Catholic Faith, Third Revised Edition, Anthony Wilhelm, Paulist Press, 1981–all emphases mine).

Hope this helps!

 

[Elizabeth502]

There is something about women priests that smacks of paganism.

There is something about the “womanpriest” movement that smacks of self-delusion, not to mention confusion and restricted vision.

Look, I have no problem with dissent. Dissent, when responsibly expressed, has a legitimate & healthy place in an organization, including in the RCC, and it is correct that there is in fact a tradition of dissent in the church. It is not the dissent that bothers me per se about these women. It is their premises, their reasoning, their assumptions, which put to doubt their very goals.

Are they seeking power in a political sense, thus seeking priesthood as an avenue for that? Do they really believe, in the unlikely scenario that there will be a female priesthood, women would in addition advance to bishops, cardinals, the Pope? If they’re seeking a more visible & legitimate role in governance, then I am behind them, as is EWTN’s Fr. Groeschel.

Do they imagine that a claim to priesthood can be publicly legitimized by reliance on private revelation? (They repeatedly say that “The Holy Spirit inspires **me **that…”) Did they forget that Paul specifically wrote about the dangers of claiming authority for oneself, and how inauthentic such self-seizing is? (Oh, wait: I forgot how little esteem they have for the supposedly ‘misogynist’ Paul – never mind how they misread Paul, having learned true biblical criticism poorly or not at all.)

Governance is a separate issue from consecration. That’s the first issue they don’t ‘get.’ Consecration is a separate issue from personal holiness. That’s the second issue they don’t ‘get.’ No particular priest is holier than a particular lay person by virtue of consecration. Your access to God is not limited or defined by your state in life, not even vaguely. Priests have parishes. That’s the third issue they don’t get. Which local churches are they ‘pastors’ of? Where is their following?

As a woman, I’m embarrassed by their bogus “ceremonies,” and horrified by their going further than “dress-up,” pretending to consecrate hosts. There is no transubstantiation there. God help us if they arrogate to themselves the power to hear confessions. All of their behaviors are sacrilegious and offensive. The author of the sacraments is Christ; the seat of the sacraments is through Christ’s Church in Rome. They are not in communion with Rome; therefore, these women dispense no sacramental graces no matter how elaborately they go through the motions.

 

[Mike_Dye]

I am not at all suprised that this is coming from a Maryknoll priest. I have never been impressed with Maryknoll as they have always seemed to water down the faith to be more politically correct or more ecumenical. It is one thing to disagree with the Church on this matter but one should not publicize it, especially being a priest.

I will have to agree. In my youth I was called to the priesthood but I said no. I always thought the Maryknoll missions is where I would go. As I matured I found them to be way to liberal and unorthodox for my tastes.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

ritthichai:

There IS room in the Catholic Church for dissent. IowaMike may well be a borderline rad-trad who thinks anyone who isn’t in absolute lockstep with his particular reading of the current Magisterial temperature is simply a heretic. I don’t want to make this a personal attack on Mike–he and I agree far more than we disagree. I don’t look for nor do I want radical change in the RCC–if I wanted the sorts of things Father Roy Bourgeois is propounding, I’d have stayed Episcopalian. Heck, I would’ve been a member of the mainstream Episcopal Church instead of one of it’s AMiA splinter groups!

A rad-trad? What exactly is a rad-trad? If it is a Catholic with a well-formed and informed Catholic conscience who upholds Catholic doctrine against secular views and creeping relativisim, hey, I wear the label proudly!

Earlier in this forum I provided a list of Catholic dissident groups who have formed up to reject one or more doctrines or disciplines of the Church. I am certain all would label me a radical traditionalist. Take Call To Action based in Lincoln, Nebraska. They were excommunicated by thier bishop (and their excommunication was upheld by the Vatican) for their dissent regarding homosexuality,call for ordination of female and gay priests and a celibate priesthood. In additon they state,

We call upon the Church officials to incorporate women at all levels of ministry and decision making

. They also say,

We claim our responsibility, as a committed laity, religious and clergy, to participate in the selection of our bishops…

Today CTA numbers about 25,000 nationally. Since they have been excommunicated by Bishop Bruskewitz in Lincoln, they have, on a de facto basis, been excommuniated as a movement. They publically reject the ex-communication with some pretty offensive language.

The point is there are plenty of dissident groups out there that you can choose who may hold views more to your liking than the Catholic Church. However, to be a Catholic you must be accept all Church dogma, Apostolic Tradition (T), solemn pronouncements and the teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium. This requires obedience, humility and faith. People who selectively pick and choose what they want to believe are labeled "cafeteria Catholics.

One final point. When you talk to a member of one of these dissident groups they will often use the conscience arugment to defend their position. So when the arugument comes down to who is right, the individual conscience or the Church…I guess I’ll go with the Pope and Christ’s Church who, in accordance with scripture, teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals.

God Bless

Iowa Mike, Rad-Trad #1

 

[rpp]

Flameburn’s response to IowaMike’s post, however insulting it was, was also not entirely accurate.

There is room for discussion on certain topics because they are not doctrines or dogma, such as priestly celibacy. There is no room for dissent. One can disagree with a discipline, that is not dissent. When one disagrees with a doctrine, such as an all-male priesthood, that is dissent and at that point a person starts down the road to apostasy or heresy.

IowaMike’s posts are not radical or extremist. They do, in fact, correctly state authentic Catholic teaching.

 

[flameburns623]

Flameburn’s response to IowaMike’s post, however insulting it was, was also not entirely accurate.

There is room for discussion on certain topics because they are not doctrines or dogma, such as priestly celibacy. There is no room for dissent. One can disagree with a discipline, that is not dissent. When one disagrees with a doctrine, such as an all-male priesthood, that is dissent and at that point a person starts down the road to apostasy or heresy.

IowaMike’s posts are not radical or extremist. They do, in fact, correctly state authentic Catholic teaching.

I cited in my last post sufficient sources to reflect that you are in fact overstating your case. Dissent is permissible under rare and unusual circumstances and conscience does take precedence so long as the individual makes a very very serious effort to rightly inform their conscience. There may of course be consequences to dissent which the dissenter is obliged to take into consideration. Aquinas is somewhere quoted as saying that it is better for an individual to suffer the penalty of excommunication than to violate one’s sincere conscience.

The article I cited gave examples of dissent starting in the 1950’s and going back clear to the Arian heresy. Dissent is possible, but it should be rare, and I know of no example where dissent has led to the alteration of a definitively-defined dogma of the Church.

In the case we are specifically dealing with: someone of Fr. Roy Bourgeois’ persuasion, the onus is very great indeed to show very good evidence that the ordination of women is NOT part of dogma or doctrine. His specific actions were not a well-reasoned argument for his case: they were an act of public dissent focused much more on creating public scandal than on winning the hearts and minds of reasoned thinkers within the Magisterium of the Church. Frankly, if Fr. Bourgeois had done as my citation from Wilhelm had suggested–work responsibly towards a revision of the Church’s position–he would not be facing excommunication and we would not be having this conversation, no matter how much we might disagree with Fr. Bourgeois’ position.

That said: my last post turned a tad personal, something I normally make a serious effort to avoid. My apologies to IowaMike.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I cited in my last post sufficient sources to reflect that you are in fact overstating your case. Dissent is permissible under rare and unusual circumstances and conscience does take precedence so long as the individual makes a very very serious effort to rightly inform their conscience. There may of course be consequences to dissent which the dissenter is obliged to take into consideration. Aquinas is somewhere quoted as saying that it is better for an individual to suffer the penalty of excommunication than to violate one’s sincere conscience.

The article I cited gave examples of dissent starting in the 1950’s and going back clear to the Arian heresy. Dissent is possible, but it should be rare, and I know of no example where dissent has led to the alteration of a definitively-defined dogma of the Church.

In the case we are specifically dealing with: someone of Fr. Roy Bourgeois’ persuasion, the onus is very great indeed to show very good evidence that the ordination of women is NOT part of dogma or doctrine. His specific actions were not a well-reasoned argument for his case: they were an act of public dissent focused much more on creating public scandal than on winning the hearts and minds of reasoned thinkers within the Magisterium of the Church. Frankly, if Fr. Bourgeois had done as my citation from Wilhelm had suggested–work responsibly towards a revision of the Church’s position–he would not be facing excommunication and we would not be having this conversation, no matter how much we might disagree with Fr. Bourgeois’ position.

That said: my last post turned a tad personal, something I normally make a serious effort to avoid. My apologies to IowaMike.

Thanks for the apology but I took no offense. I am quite use to beling called a radical - traditional Catholic although I find nothing radical about my views…

I continue to disagree with your characterization regarding dissent. It is one thing to dissent respectfully within the Church while following Church doctrines and teachings and quite another to spread scandal by publically dissenting and leading others into error.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[flameburns623]

Thanks for the apology but I took no offense. I am quite use to beling called a radical - traditional Catholic although I find nothing radical about my views…

I continue to disagree with your characterization regarding dissent. It is one thing to dissent respectfully within the Church while following Church doctrines and teachings and quite another to spread scandal by publically dissenting and leading others into error.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

Mike:

The highlighted portion of your quote above has been my point all along.

Thank you for accepting my apology so gracefully. Whether you felt insulted or not, it was very bad form on my part.

 

[rpp]

I cited in my last post sufficient sources to reflect that you are in fact overstating your case. Dissent is permissible under rare and unusual circumstances and conscience does take precedence so long as the individual makes a very very serious effort to rightly inform their conscience. There may of course be consequences to dissent which the dissenter is obliged to take into consideration. Aquinas is somewhere quoted as saying that it is better for an individual to suffer the penalty of excommunication than to violate one’s sincere conscience.

The article I cited gave examples of dissent starting in the 1950’s and going back clear to the Arian heresy. Dissent is possible, but it should be rare, and I know of no example where dissent has led to the alteration of a definitively-defined dogma of the Church.

In the case we are specifically dealing with: someone of Fr. Roy Bourgeois’ persuasion, the onus is very great indeed to show very good evidence that the ordination of women is NOT part of dogma or doctrine. His specific actions were not a well-reasoned argument for his case: they were an act of public dissent focused much more on creating public scandal than on winning the hearts and minds of reasoned thinkers within the Magisterium of the Church. Frankly, if Fr. Bourgeois had done as my citation from Wilhelm had suggested–work responsibly towards a revision of the Church’s position–he would not be facing excommunication and we would not be having this conversation, no matter how much we might disagree with Fr. Bourgeois’ position.

That said: my last post turned a tad personal, something I normally make a serious effort to avoid. My apologies to IowaMike.

The source you cited, and the web site yuou referenced promotes heresy and is not in line with Catholic teachings. You appear to be getting your incorrect ideas about what consists of heresy and what is not Catholic doctrine from heretics.

Here is the Catholic Culture review of the US Catholic site.

If you can get a reliable source and stop taking comments out of context, I will listen to your position. However, I doubt you will be able to find any.

As to whether the all-male priesthood is a doctrine of the Church, that topic has been done to death on this forum. It is a doctrine. And the burden of proof is on the person who is trying to change this, not on those who want to keep it the same. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[flameburns623]

The source you cited, and the web site you referenced promotes heresy and is not in line with Catholic teachings. You appear to be getting your incorrect ideas about what consists of heresy and what is not Catholic doctrine from heretics.

Here is the Catholic Culture review of the US Catholic site.

If you can get a reliable source and stop taking comments out of context, I will listen to your position. However, I doubt you will be able to find any.

As to whether the all-male priesthood is a doctrine of the Church, that topic has been done to death on this forum. It is a doctrine. And the burden of proof is on the person who is trying to change this, not on those who want to keep it the same. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

US Catholic is published by the Claretians, an accepted order of the Catholic Church. I don’t care for their take on the Church, any more than I care for the stands taken by America (the Jesuit publication) or by National Catholic Reporter. Conservative Catholics like to read the progressives out of the Church, and unfortunately progressives simply dismiss conservatives as irrelevant. The fact is that no official body of the Church has disbanded the Claretian or Jesuit order nor have their publications been officially declared heretical.

Such publications as I cited serve at least one good purpose: they raise good questions among we who count ourselves as conservative and/or ‘faithful’ and who would otherwise settle too comfortably into smugness and self-assuredness. I’ve used this example once today in an e-mail but I’ll use it again here: in Chaim Potok’s The Book of Lights, a character named Gershon Loran is torn between Talmudic studies and the study of ancient Hasidic texts. At one point his Talmud teacher challenges him on the vagaries of Hasidism and Loran replies, “I like their questions; I don’t agree with their answers, but I like their questions”. Pretty much defines my position on the whole matter of conservative versus progressive in the Church.

I am not a Catholic ‘progressive’ and I am not a proponent of the ordination of women. I already indicated my sense that the burden of proof is on the progressives to prove the case, and I don’t believe it can be made. You of course are absolutely certain that the subject has been settled and closed forever and all time–I figure you’re almost certainly correct, but am absolutely certain only of death and taxes. I am aware of some of the details of their arguments, simply from the fact that I am lately of the Episcopal splinter known as AMiA, where such debates go on regularly. I don’t think such arguments will ever win the day in the RCC or Orthodox communions, and almost equally improbably in my own lifetime or yours.

It has been suggested that liberals have a biological predisposition towards a high tolerance of ambiguity, while conservatives are biologically predisposed to a preferment for certainty. Whether such things are biologically predetermined or not, I suspect my ability to cope with an open-ended universe is greater than yours, at least on religious matters. Nothing wrong with that, and I don’t intend it as an insult . . .I’m just observing something about the way exchanges on this matter seem to go. You don’t really want to recognize me as an ally on the subject of this thread because I am not 100% sold out on what you deem to be absolute certainties. We are nonetheless brothers in Christ and brothers in the Church–I assume for some reason that you are masculine–and I suspect we have said most everything that can or should be said on this topic.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Mike:

The highlighted portion of your quote above has been my point all along.

Thank you for accepting my apology so gracefully. Whether you felt insulted or not, it was very bad form on my part.

Then on this point we agree.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[rpp]

US Catholic is published by the Claretians, an accepted order of the Catholic Church. I don’t care for their take on the Church, any more than I care for the stands taken by America (the Jesuit publication) or by National Catholic Reporter. Conservative Catholics like to read the progressives out of the Church, and unfortunately progressives simply dismiss conservatives as irrelevant. The fact is that no official body of the Church has disbanded the Claretian or Jesuit order nor have their publications been officially declared heretical.

Such publications as I cited serve at least one good purpose: they raise good questions among we who count ourselves as conservative and/or ‘faithful’ and who would otherwise settle too comfortably into smugness and self-assuredness. I’ve used this example once today in an e-mail but I’ll use it again here: in Chaim Potok’s The Book of Lights, a character named Gershon Loran is torn between Talmudic studies and the study of ancient Hasidic texts. At one point his Talmud teacher challenges him on the vagaries of Hasidism and Loran replies, “I like their questions; I don’t agree with their answers, but I like their questions”. Pretty much defines my position on the whole matter of conservative versus progressive in the Church.

I am not a Catholic ‘progressive’ and I am not a proponent of the ordination of women. I already indicated my sense that the burden of proof is on the progressives to prove the case, and I don’t believe it can be made. You of course are absolutely certain that the subject has been settled and closed forever and all time–I figure you’re almost certainly correct, but am absolutely certain only of death and taxes. I am aware of some of the details of their arguments, simply from the fact that I am lately of the Episcopal splinter known as AMiA, where such debates go on regularly. I don’t think such arguments will ever win the day in the RCC or Orthodox communions, and almost equally improbably in my own lifetime or yours.

It has been suggested that liberals have a biological predisposition towards a high tolerance of ambiguity, while conservatives are biologically predisposed to a preferment for certainty. Whether such things are biologically predetermined or not, I suspect my ability to cope with an open-ended universe is greater than yours, at least on religious matters. Nothing wrong with that, and I don’t intend it as an insult . . .I’m just observing something about the way exchanges on this matter seem to go. You don’t really want to recognize me as an ally on the subject of this thread because I am not 100% sold out on what you deem to be absolute certainties. We are nonetheless brothers in Christ and brothers in the Church–I assume for some reason that you are masculine–and I suspect we have said most everything that can or should be said on this topic.

There is no such thing as a “conservative Catholic” or a “progressive Catholic”, only faithful and unfaithful.

I am so done with your incorrect and inconsistent assertions and reliance on heretics to back up your assertions. I will not respond to you further.

 

[ritthichai]

There is no such thing as a “conservative Catholic” or a “progressive Catholic”, only faithful and unfaithful.

I am so done with your incorrect and inconsistent assertions and reliance on heretics to back up your assertions. I will not respond to you further.

Is this ‘unfallible’ too?

Honestly, the love you Catholics show for each other when you get down to dogma… And the gates of hell shall never prevail?

 

[Cristiano]

Is this ‘unfallible’ too?

Honestly, the love you Catholics show for each other when you get down to dogma… And the gates of hell shall never prevail?

At least RPP is not a liar as you are. Why do you keep attacking the Catholic Church and present yourself as a Catholic in your profile?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Is this ‘unfallible’ too?

Honestly, the love you Catholics show for each other when you get down to dogma… And the gates of hell shall never prevail?

No this is simply the truth and truth does not change.

God Bless

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

There is no such thing as a “conservative Catholic” or a “progressive Catholic”, only faithful and unfaithful.

I am so done with your incorrect and inconsistent assertions and reliance on heretics to back up your assertions. I will not respond to you further.

I’d like to refine rpp’s definition a bit. There is only one kind of Catholic…one who believes and lives the tenents of the faith. Those that knowingly dissent from the teachings of the Church are dissidents or ex-Catholics.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

At least RPP is not a liar as you are. Why do you keep attacking the Catholic Church and present yourself as a Catholic in your profile?

Boys and girls, let charity and love prevail. This is an opportunity to take Cristiano to church.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike