Priest stripped of his duties after performing Mass with a woman priest

[mdmpsyd]

What exactly are you saying?

Exactly what I said.

If your conscience is in opposition to Church teaching, then it is ill-formed.

That is more than a little bit disingenuous. “Unless you believe what I tell you to believe, you are ill-informed.” Why bother having any teachings at all on the role of one’s conscience?

 

[Tigg]

You are missing one other very important one: The individual knows what the church teaches, why the church teaches it, the person’s conscience has been formed (in the sense that his or her frontal lobes are developed such that he or she is capable of weighing all the arguments), and is still compelled to believe otherwise.

This sounds like thinly veiled moral relativism and I think you too, are missing one other very important point. We must assent to Divine Revelation with our entire being - will and intellect. Once faith is given as free gift, we must then be obedient realizing the Church through the Holy Spirit, is the One speaking.

CCC 154:156
Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed is contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason.

What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”

 

[Tigg]

You are missing one other very important one: The individual knows what the church teaches, why the church teaches it, the person’s conscience has been formed (in the sense that his or her frontal lobes are developed such that he or she is capable of weighing all the arguments), and is still compelled to believe otherwise. That is the situation that Blessed Newman was referring to when he said that there was nothing on this earth with more authority than one’s conscience.

This sounds like thinly veiled moral relativism and you are missing one important point. We must assent to divine revelation with our entire being - will and intellect. Or maybe you do not believe the Church is truly guided by the Holy Spirit.

CCC 154-156
Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed is contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason.

What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”.

 

[jwinch2]

You are missing one other very important one: The individual knows what the church teaches, why the church teaches it, the person’s conscience has been formed (in the sense that his or her frontal lobes are developed such that he or she is capable of weighing all the arguments), and is still compelled to believe otherwise.

If one is compelled against their will to violate their conscience that is one thing. However, if one deliberately rejects a properly formed conscience, that is another, and no I did not forget it. We even have a name for it. Sin.

That is the situation that Blessed Newman was referring to when he said that there was nothing on this earth with more authority than one’s conscience.

Blessed Newman did not tell people to reject a properly formed conscience. Newman stated that the exercise of conscience came with rights because it also came along with duties, namely the work to properly understand God’s law and properly form our conscience. When reflecting on the Papacy in the context of conscience, Newman said: *“The sense of right and wrong, which is the first element in religion, is so delicate, so fitful, so easily puzzled, obscured, perverted, so subtle in its argumentative methods, so impressible by education, so biased by pride and passion, so unsteady in its course, that, in the struggle for existence amid the various exercises and triumphs of the human intellect, this sense is at once the highest of all teachers, yet the least luminous; and the Church, the Pope, the Hierarchy are, in the Divine purpose, the supply of an urgent demand.” *

Long story short? Newman knew that it could be difficult to tell the difference between the conscience which was the “voice of God” and what he referred to as the “right of self will” which “thinks of conscience as the individual’s “right of thinking, speaking, writing, and acting, according to their judgment…”. Because of this ability to tell right and wrong being so easily “biased by pride and passion”, he knew that having an objective standard to properly guide one’s following of conscience was important.

 

[jwinch2]

asked and answered–not necessarily by you.

No, it was not. You stated that there was very strong evidence that women priests existed in the early Church. As yet, despite multiple requests, you have not provided that evidence. If the evidence is as strong as you suggest, this should be relatively easy to do. Yet, you have provided nothing.

We are still waiting.

 

[jwinch2]

Conscience must be formed correctly

A general comment made by those who have taken issue with Church teaching concerns their belief that they have a “right” to form and follow their own conscience. They use this paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church to support this belief:
1782. Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

But there are many other paragraphs that define what a well-formed conscience is; paragraph 1782 merely defends a person’s right to be wrong. In other words, yes, “free will” allows you to follow your conscience; however, if your conscience is erroneously formed, you have simply exercised your right to make a mistake. Consider the very next paragraph in the Catechism:
1783. Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. (Emphasis added)

We live in a world that saturates us with printed material, visual images and soundbites that necessarily have an impact on how we think. American society in particular has come to revere “personal rights” in the form of moral relativism (“It may be right for you, but it’s not right for me”). It is politically incorrect these days to assert that there are, in fact, moral absolutes; perhaps the only “absolute” allowed by our culture today is that “there are no absolutes.” Of course, this is a logically untenable position; by acknowledging one absolute, the moral relativist has proven himself wrong.

The Catechism goes on to teach us that, even though we may seek to form a good conscience, we can err:
1786. Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1. A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1. Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct. (Emphasis Added)

How do we form our conscience correctly, then? The Catechism gives this answer: “The Word of God is a light for our path. We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. This is how moral conscience is formed” (CCC, 1802). Indeed, Scripture itself warns us that it is not easy to form a good and pure conscience that is in accord with the will of God, and that it is easy to go astray. For instance, I Tim. 4:16 advises us to “[w]atch your life and doctrine closely.” And I Tim. 1:19 tells us that “**y rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.”

It is clear, then, that while the Church teaches that we should not force a person to act against his conscience, it does not follow that the person’s conscience has led him to the right choice. Simply having thought about the issues and come to a conclusion based on one’s own personal situation, needs and desires does not mean one’s conscience is correct. Today, our culture encourages us to ponder our fate and agonize over moral decisions in order to justify our choices. But “searching your heart” and “talking it over” with your spouse does not mean you’ve reached a morally upright decision. **

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8063&CFID=137962582&CFTOKEN=40578327

 

[jwinch2]

Obedience and authority

Obedience and authority seem to be unfamiliar and unpopular concepts these days. In our secular lives, obedience to authority is not taken seriously in many cases; simply ask yourself if you always obey the speed limit. In the context of our faith, it seems obedience is even more misunderstood and maligned. Most people to whom I’ve mentioned the idea that we are called to be obedient to our bishops have reacted with incredulity: “You mean we’re supposed to jump if he says jump?!” Well, yes, if his command relates to something clearly within his jurisdiction, and if it does not go against God’s laws. According to canon law,

Christ’s faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show Christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church (Canon 212, §1).
This is a bitter pill to swallow for some American Catholics, who perhaps envision a more democratic Church.

This lack of understanding of the obedience we owe to our bishops suggests that, while many of us are quick to assert that our faith is important to us, we don’t fully grasp what “faith” means in the context of the Church. The Catechism pairs the words “faith” and “obedience” repeatedly:

1. By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God. With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, “the obedience of faith.”
2. To obey . . . in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself . . . Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture. The Virgin Mary is its most perfect embodiment. (Emphasis in original)

You might be saying, “If I heard the voice of God as Abraham and Mary did, I too would be willing to obey!” But we do hear God today: we hear him in Scripture and in the Magisterium of the Church. In Dignitatis Humanae (1965), Vatican II noted:

. . . in forming their consciences the faithful must pay careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. It is her duty to proclaim and teach with authority the truth which is Christ and, at the same time, to declare and confirm by her authority the principles of the moral order which spring from human nature itself (§14; emphasis added).

Of course, we must accept on faith the truth of that statement. But then, that is part of being Catholic. Unfortunately, many of us seem not to recognize God’s voice when he speaks through his Church. In fact, St. Paul, who “speaks of the ‘obedience of faith’ as our first obligation shows that ‘ignorance of God’ is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations. Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him” (CCC, §2087). In other words, when we doubt the definitive teachings of the Church, we fail in our duty to God, and this failing is due primarily to our ignorance of him.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8063&CFID=137962582&CFTOKEN=40578327

 

[CatholicFireman]

mdmpsyd, why not present your arguement to one of the many priests here on CAF (i.e., Fr. Vincent Serpa)?

 

[fordhamstudent]

There is no evidence that women deacons, presbyters, or bishops functioned in the proto-Orthodox communities or in the early Jesus movement. Feminist theologians such as Elizabeth Fiorenza assert that women presbyters and bishops existed in the early Jesus movement based on ancient Christian frescos, which are of the wives of presbyters and bishops by the way and not clergy, and feminist biblical exegesis–which on it own can read women into every verse of Scripture. The advocates of women in the ministerial priesthood almost always root their theological framework in liberation theologies which overly politicize the Gospel and de-contextualize it from its source in what they deem as male-narrative theology. The reality is the Gospel message is patriarchal and hiearchical and thus the Church reflects that and subverting this truth does not make their positions valid and what they end up doing is creating a new religion of their own making and not anything resembling the Christian Church. Unfortunately, some of the older priests, who tend to be more progressive based on an outdated and passe interpretation of Vatican II documents, buy into the theology which feminists like Dr. Fiorenza peddle to the masses. It is clear that true social justice is first giving to God his due and then to men their due and justice does not mean the equality of men and women in all spheres of life, including the priesthood. True justice does not mean destroying apostolic succession so women can play dress up at Mass–this is truly injustice.

 

[adrift]

asked and answered–not necessarily by you.

You made the statement that there was strong evidence. You were asked to present it and you presented this

As far as sources, I refer you to the couple spoken of by Paul–Prisca and Aquila.

This couple, husband and wife are mentioned 7 times in Scripture. None of the scriptures say that they were ordained although tradition does have Aquile being a Bishop. This is your strong evidence? I really have been waiting for you to answer without such sidestepping as pearls before swine.

 

[adrift]

Blessed John Cardinal Newman wrote extensively about the role of one’s conscience and one’s obligations to follow any external source of authority. Note the word “blessed.”

I am wondering why you pointed out the word blessed. You do realize that it doesn’t confirm that everything they might have said and wrote was infallible?

It is a bit disingenuous to say that unless your conscience conforms to what it is told to believe it is unformed or uninformed.

.

Catechism

IN BRIEF

1795 “Conscience is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths” (GS 16).

1796 Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.

1797 For the man who has committed evil, the verdict of his conscience remains a pledge of conversion and of hope.

1798 A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.

1799 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

1802 The Word of God is a light for our path. We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. This is how moral conscience is formed.

 

[mdmpsyd]

We must assent to divine revelation with our entire being - will and intellect. Or maybe you do not believe the Church is truly guided by the Holy Spirit.

Yes, and your point is…?

 

[mdmpsyd]

If one is compelled against their will to violate their conscience that is one thing. However, if one deliberately rejects a properly formed conscience, that is another, and no I did not forget it.

So, let me see if I understand. If the priest in question had not done as he did, because he had been compelled by law, tradition, or whatever then we are on the same page. However, if he rejects his properly formed and informed conscience and did not act as he did then we have what your are calling sin. It is a good thing he said the mass with that female.

Long story short? Newman knew that it could be difficult to tell the difference between the conscience which was the “voice of God” and what he referred to as the “right of self will” which “thinks of conscience as the individual’s “right of thinking, speaking, writing, and acting, according to their judgment…”. Because of this ability to tell right and wrong being so easily “biased by pride and passion”, he knew that having an objective standard to properly guide one’s following of conscience was important.

Are you under the illusion that there is an objective basis to any of this?

I notice that you do not disagree that Blessed Newman said that there was no higher authority than one’s conscience. Any kind of sophistry that comes down to “if you do not believe as you are told, you conscience isn’t formed,” really invalidates what a conscience is supposed to do.

 

[mdmpsyd]

and a conscience must be formed correctly

Sorry but the quoting mechanism left nothing quoted.
A conscience must be formed and informed. You are neglecting one half of the equation. In any event, subjecting one’s conscience to what one is told to believe, is not acting upon one’s conscience.
Why am I not having this discussion with ____ (sorry, there’s no name there to prompt my memory)? Why should I? You are not being successful in telling me what to believe so perhaps **he **can succeed where you failed? I do not think so. If Blessed Newman would not subject the authority of his conscience to the Pope, why should I subject mine to anybody?

 

[mdmpsyd]

You made the statement that there was strong evidence. You were asked to present it and you presented this

This couple, husband and wife are mentioned 7 times in Scripture. None of the scriptures say that they were ordained although tradition does have Aquile being a Bishop. This is your strong evidence? I really have been waiting for you to answer without such sidestepping as pearls before swine.

aaah, deep sigh. If the heavens were to open up and a voice were to tell you that you were wrong, would you chalk it up to some form of a nightmare?

Pearls can’t sidestep and if they could … are you referring to yourself as swine? It is Christmas eve, we are about to celebrate our Awesome God sanctify our human existence by becoming one of us. Don’t think of your self as a pig. And may the God who passes ***ALL ***understanding bless you and keep you close to His/Her heart.

 

[epan]

Because its degrading to women.

Other denominations get a lot of things wrong, that doesn’t mean the church should follow.

My first reaction to that statement is that I doubt that most women would agree. The next reaction is to wonder if you believe that the Church has never Ben erroneous, when it comes down to change? The third reaction would be to wonder if anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of history does not believe that the Catholic Church does not eventually bend to overwhelming societal pressure?

 

[agapewolf]

My first reaction to that statement is that I doubt that most women would agree. The next reaction is to wonder if you believe that the Church has never Ben erroneous, when it comes down to change? The third reaction would be to wonder if anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of history does not believe that the Catholic Church does not eventually bend to overwhelming societal pressure?

1. Doesn’t matter who agrees, and there are many women who do agree, so I would disagree with your “most women” statement. and anyway, I use to believe women could become priests. Then I had it explained to me, so I changed my mind, and I loved the law of the church. I explained it in a later post if you care to read it.

2 and 3. The church has NEVER EVER changed in matters of faith and morals and never will. I believe Jesus when He promised the Holy Spirit to the church in this matter. I think He’s capable of making sure it won’t happen.

 

[epan]

1. Doesn’t matter who agrees, and there are many women who do agree, so I would disagree with your “most women” statement. and anyway, I use to believe women could become priests. Then I had it explained to me, so I changed my mind, and I loved the law of the church. I explained it in a later post if you care to read it.

2 and 3. The church has NEVER EVER changed in matters of faith and morals and never will. I believe Jesus when He promised the Holy Spirit to the church in this matter. I think He’s capable of making sure it won’t happen.

I’d be happy to discuss some of your points, but perhaps on another day.

 

[estesbob]

I’d be happy to discuss some of your points, but perhaps on another day.

Is it Chrismas there yet?

 

[epan]

Is it Chrismas there yet?

8:14 PM Christmas Eve, as I type ths.