Roy Bourgeois to be Booted from Maryknoll
NCR reports the expulsion of Roy Bourgeois from the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers unless he recants his position on the ordination of women. His deadline is Saturday, and he says he has no intention to recant.
This from the homily at his concelebration of the ordination of Janice Sevre-Duszynska, the event that started all this:
Conscience is something very sacred. It gives us a sense of right and wrong and urges us to do the right thing. Conscience is what compelled Franz Jagerstatter to refuse to enlist in Hitler’s army. On this day, August 9, 1943, this humble farmer was executed for following his conscience. Conscience is what compelled Rosa Parks to say, “No, I cannot sit in the back of the bus anymore.” Conscience is what compels Janice Sevre-Duszynska and the other women to say, “No, we cannot deny our call from God to the priesthood.” And it is our conscience that compels us to be here today. How can we speak out against the injustice of our country’s foreign policy in Latin America and Iraq if we are silent about the injustice of our church here at home?
Bourgeois also sent an open letter to priests along the same line, inviting them to examine their consciences on this issue. Judging from the silence, almost all priests concur that the non-ordination of women is God’s will. I anticipate they will remain silent again as Bourgeois is defrocked.
I’m a little puzzled as to the canonical question. Cardinal Levada of the CDF announced in 2008 that:
Remaining firm on what has been established by canon 1378 of the Canon Law, both he who has attempted to confer holy orders on a woman, and the woman who has attempted to receive the said sacrament, incurs in latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to the Apostolic See.
Canon 1378 refers to priests who absolve accomplices in sin (referring to canon 977), or to non-priests saying Mass, or hearing confessions. In this case, Bourgeois did not himself ordain the woman in question (or attempt to ordain her, as the case may be.) He preached at the Mass and concelebrated it, but only bishops ordain. Is excommunication a reasonable penalty for what Bourgeois actually did, under canon law? Why or why not?
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
Wow.
I agree Lisa. I am no canon lawyer (or lawyer) but as he did not actually ordain the woman so the reaction seems a bit disproportionate based on the actual text of the law as presented. I hate to sound Jesuitical but in this case I think the distinction is a real difference,
There should be some kind of compromise that can be struck. Maybe he should be allowed to attend but not concelebrate?
As I said…wow….this is a situation where the parties should say come let us reason together.
I mean for heaven’s sakes, the Vatican is holding conversations with the SSPX that has as one of its actual bishops a man who denies the holocaust in addition to a whole host of other conspiratorial fantasies.
Sheesh, Fair is fair.
Go figure. Swift and decisive action to protect the Church from conduct so scandalous the only just recourse is for a man to be removed from his order and the priesthood. You’d almost think we’re talking about someone who abused a kid. Oh, wait. Never mind.
According to the letter, his contumacy caused his excommunication, which would seem to be the just and inescapable result for one who has vowed obedience.
An even greater offense than his predilection for priestesses is the gauche self-comparison with historical figures who actually incurred grave risks for grave reasons.
Yada yada something about penises yada yada something about Jesus keeping a secret yada yada “…this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” Whatever.
Still, Fr. Bourgeouis probably knew what was likely to happen. As they say, each of us chooses our fights, and he has chosen his. Those in the Vatican have hats and rings and are not afraid to use them. They would not let something like Canon Law stand in their way if they want to excommunicate someone. Wiggle room is provided only for reactionaries like the SSPX.
My eleven year old daughter keeps asking me why we don’t have woman priests in our church. I tell her we will one day, it just takes the church sometimes a long time to make changes it needs to. I am very heartened for my daughters’ sake that we have courageous priests like Father Bourgeois, I’ll be praying it works out well for him.
Lisa, the canonical issues involved here do not involve the 2008 change that imposed automatic excommunication on those who simulate Holy Orders. As you’ve said and others have said, he did not simulate. He did not lay on hands.
What’s involved here are two canons. The first, Canon 1371, has already been applied. It prescribes a “just penalty” for a person who “teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects” a definitive teaching “and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract.” As P. Flanagan has noted, the inability of the Church to ordain women is a definitive teaching. This is probably the canon applied to Father Bourgeois when he was excommunicated in late 2008.
What’s being threatened now is Canon 696, the general ability of religious institutes to dismiss their members as long as the reason for dismissal is “grave, external, imputable and juridically proven.” One of the reasons listed as an example for when imposing dismissal from the religious institute is appropriate is “obstinate attachment to, or diffusion of, teachings condemned by the magisterium of the Church.”
The effect of a dismissal from a religious institute for a priest, besides loss of membership and release from religious vows, is that the priest is suspended from the exercise of the priesthood until he finds a bishop that will incardinate him into the diocese (Canon 701).
To a degree, the whole thing seems rather ironic. I’m sure Fr. Bourgeois doesn’t think of himself as an “offender” of “church practice,” nor think the Vatican (or Maryknoll) as injurious, doing him an injury (just doing its duty). Thus as a “victim,” possibly he feels he as the power at some later date to make himself superior to the Vatican by “forgiving” it. This will make him both wise and tender.
I am sure, too, the Maryknoll community will not cut of his pension fund in the event that he is eventually expelled. So, with invincible resolution, Fr. Bourgeois believes he has chosen the right path, in obedience to his own principles, with some security.
His only disadvantage, of course, is his credulity as a Catholic priest. Why does he wait for Rome (or Maryknoll) to warn or “expel” him? Why hasn’t he moved on or settled in a new “spiriitual” place on his own? (He has already decided that the whole church is wrong.)
It’s my personal opinion (based only on gut feeling) that some day women will be ordained Catholic priests and bishops, but it does seem to me that for now the Church’s position is so firm on the matter that I wonder what Bourgeois thinks he is up to.
Everyone has a right to follow his or her own conscience, but what about duties to give religious assent to authoritative statements like the one P Flanagan quotes? What about obedience? And while following the letter of the law, there is a distinction between actually ordaining a woman and participating in the festivities, Bourgeois was still defying authority, and is adamant about continuing to do so.
I don’t think his actions can be compared to refusing to enlist in Hitler’s army or even Rosa Park’s refusal to sit at the back of the bus. I recently said about some (not all) abortion protesters that I thought they were more interested in hearing the sound of their own voices than being heard. I know almost nothing about Bourgeois, but I wonder if he isn’t a bit enamored of himself.
How do even liberal Catholics justify this kind of defiance of authority? Surely the Catholic Church has some authority.
David,
What are you talking about? You have no evidence to support your assumptions about Bourgeois. What is it but a matter of conscience. More clergy should have the guts to followe their conscience.
On other fronts the disreputable American bishops take action against a true light in the church.
Breaking News from NCRonline.org
March 30, 2011 National Catholic Reporter
U.S. bishops blast book by feminist theologian
No call for disciplinary measures against Johnson
http://ncronline.org/news/spirituality/us-bishops-blast-book-feminist-theologian#comment-201779
Richard McBrien called the American bishops appointed by John Paul II: “ciphers at best, hopeless reactionaries at worst”.
Point of information: Who was the bishop at the ordination?
“It’s my personal opinion (based only on gut feeling) that some day women will be ordained Catholic priests and bishops, but it does seem to me that for now the Church’s position is so firm on the matter….” and “How do even liberal Catholics justify this kind of defiance of authority?”
But can you imagine a time when the issue will go from “definitive” to “non-definitive” without someone challenging it? I’m not suggesting Bourgeois has started some kind of movement that’s going to accomplish something, but if you honestly believe the church’s position on this is going to change, the process that leads to that change will surely involve people acting or speaking in defiance of legitimate “definitive” teaching, won’t it, unless the Pope just makes an announcement before anybody else mentions it?
Mark,
Well, I will be a very strange spokesperson for obedience to authority in the Catholic Church, but I think there are many ways to press the issue of women’s ordination, and I don’t think illicitly ordaining women or showing up at such ordinations in support is one of them. It seems to me that writing and speaking about the issues involved are fine, and that this can be done without the “in your face” approach. It is true that some theologians who did not go seeking confrontation would up being silenced, but it is also true that some of them eventually prevailed.
It is not that I think every Catholic is bound to blind obedience. Far from it. But I am doubtful that Bourgeois is really doing the cause of women’s ordination any good. I don’t think you effect change in the Catholic Church by going nose-to-nose with the Vatican.
“Wiggle room is provided only for reactionaries like the SSPX.”
Um, that would be the SSPX who were EXCOMMUNICATED decades ago for their disobedience?
In regard to the likelihood of women ordination, read Pope John Paul II’s lips: the church has NO AUTHORITY to ordain women. It’s not a discipline such as priestly celibacy, it is not something the church could change, even if she wanted to.
If the shortage of priests becomes so acute that we unfortunately have no choice but to broaden the pool of candidates, you can be sure that the first step will be to remove the discipline of priestly celibacy, allowing married men to be priests (as with the Anglican ordinariate). Not priestesses.
“On other fronts the disreputable American bishops take action against a true light in the church.”
The USCCB issued a 21-page paper explaining why Sr. Johnson’s book is not in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Perhaps you could argue against the merits of those points before leaping to a condemnation of the shepherds of our Church? The seven points articulated by the bishops against the book (they are in your linked article, to the credit of NCR) are quite straightforward. What do you find incorrect about them?
You have no evidence to support your assumptions about Bourgeois.
Bill,
I don’t claim to. They are more impressions than assumptions. I believe strongly in freedom of conscience, but I also would ask in what circumstances faithful Catholics are truly compelled by their consciences to openly defy authority. The pope and the bishops do speak with real authority. It is a good question how much you defer to that authority, even when your conscience tells you that authority is wrong. Certainly I would support a Catholic’s right in his or her personal life to make decisions of conscience directly affecting himself or herself that were not in accord with Church teachings. But it becomes another matter when you feel your conscience tells you it is your duty to wage a public crusade against the Church’s authoritative teaching on a certain matter. I do not think that people who are strongly supportive of women’s ordination, and who feel it is an injustice not to ordain women, necessarily are compelled by their conscience to wage a public campaign in open defiance of authority.
A couple of things:
-I think there are large numbers who think women should be able to be ordained and they are silent because of the refusal of the Vatican toe ven let the issue be discussed (part of the”divine constitution”); unfortunately, this is true in other areas as well.
-The management of those who speak out against the established position touches on David’s point. If noone is wiling to listen and the canonical clubs are used by the powers that be, is authority being properly used, and can one come to an “in your face” stance and not be “contumacious”(a good canonical word?)
-It’s true that Fr. Bieurgious(for the present) has chosen his path – I think his story is sad after giving a large chunk of his life to Maryknoll and to peace issues.I also think the cuttimg loose by Maryknoll is sad because they’ll be perceived in some quarters as being told to do what they have to by an authority whose actions ar veiwed as being backwards and unlistening at best.
(Footnote: see Bill M.”s mention of Prof. Johnson. The Church George Weigel exults in is the traditionalist entrenched policy makers who will use their tools to bring whoever they think they can into line.)
Maybe David is right after all that Bourgeois is hurting his own cause.
I think what’s hapened is just another event that wil cause further polarization in the Catholic community as we”drift” more and more to the smaller puere Church.
Off topic. Sorry. Please note Fr. James martin’s post on the America blog site concerning Sr. Elizabeth Johnson and the USCCB. Another reason to weep.lent, I suppose,
“In regard to the likelihood of women ordination, read Pope John Paul II’s lips: the church has NO AUTHORITY to ordain women.”
Peter’s key doesn’t unlock that door, eh?
Just want to add I second Bernard’s recent off topic post – do we need a new thread?
Of couse, it does say something here about authority and its use.
Thanks for clearing up the canonical point! Not latae sententiae, then, (as Levada had asserted,) right?
And speaking of Anglicans, it was the illicit ordinations of women that started the ball rolling in that communion. The rules and regs of church law are different there, of course, and the RCC does not recognize the validity of such ordinations, not just their liceity. In the RC Church, of course, women with a vocation to ministerial leadership most often decamp for other denominations. We train some fine leaders for the EC(USA), the UCC, the ELCA, etc., etc. Those who take the Womenpriest route are a small and feisty minority, and it’s hard to say what will become of this movement.
The bishop at this service was Dana Reynolds, who was one of the riverboat ordinands in 2005, consecrated bishop in Germany in 2008. My understanding, (though I have no secret information,) is that the riverboat ordinations in Europe and perhaps here were presided over by an active RC bishop. I had assumed that some retired guy with less to lose would step in, but apparently not. I have no idea who was present at Reynolds’ consecration, which requires 3 bishops for proper form, yes? Validity and liceity, as we see in this thread, are far from universally accepted, but in terms of respecting the traditional form, these events are carefully done.
If it’s true that an active bishop was involved in the first ordinations/consecrations, then did the bishop in question incur excommunication? Will he speak up publicly after he retires? Or before? Or just let people like Bourgeois twist in the wind?
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
————————————————————————-
This teaching is held even though the official Church cannot state with certitude that no women were present at the Last Supper{Who cooked and served the meal?—But that’s another story}. Is it not during the Last Supper that the Apostle—were ordained and consecrated bishops? Even though there is not any evidence in the Gospels of either ceremony occuring there.
The teachings/practices of the Church concerning and regarding women for over the 2000+ years of its history, are replete with hatred toward women, and a diminishment of their dignity through heresies like the Gnostic heresy which stated that spiritual realities are more important than material ones are. A major thrust of this heresy was that men are concerned with spiritual realities. And because women (as wives and mothers) are concerned with material realities—-men are superior to women.
Parts of the Gnostic heresy were resurrected, ‘baptized,’ and became codified in the Church as a premise for the need for celibacy for Western priests (Spanish Synod of Elvira in 306 taught that married priests must NOT engage in sexual relations with their wives. Pope Damasus (366-384), taught that priests must have ‘cultic purity.’ He stated that sexual intercourse made a man unclean and unsuited for priestly service. The Fourth Council of Toledo in Spain (633) made all bishops and priests in Spain take a vow of chastitiy for life. And the Second Lateran Council (1139), made celibacy for priests in the Western Church a matter of church law.
The most famous martyr of the Middle Ages—-Joan of Arc—endured the full hell of the Church’s hatred of women during her inquisition trial (and it was more burning than anything that she experienced in the bonfire that took her life).
This uneducated teen-ager, learned all that she knew of simple piety, a respect for feminine virtue, the humble faith in saints and angels, the childlike belief in the triumph of good over evil, the untroubled trust in a world run by God—from her parents and the experience of God’s love for her.
Her ability to gently refute the most astute of her questioners, was from the wisdom that she learned from the ‘Voices’ of the saints. But it did not matter, because as her accusers stated, no woman would be commanded to leave her home to direct armies. It sounds almost like today’s Gospel story of Jesus being accused of being an agent of Satan—-but Joan heard at her trial that she must be a witch—who by the power of the Devil (and through consorting with him), that she conquered the armies of England. And she was condemned to death.
I could go on and on with the repeated instances where women in the Church endured the patronizing bias, discrimination, and down-right hatred against them even from the highest authorities in the Church. And it’s all done, because Jesus couldn’t possibly have wanted women to be priests! There is no evidence that Jesus wanted men to be priests, either!
After all of these centuries, even the pontiffs believe the misinformation, and down-right lies that THEY were taught during their seminary formation. Unless there is some major upheaval that rocks the Vatican down to its core—I don’t see any change at least during the pontificate of Benedict XVI.
Eric –
Great line: “Those in the Vatican have hats and rings and are not afraid to use them.”
Irene –
Your daughter’s question confirms my new awareness that even little girls’ consciousness has been raised. My seven-year-old grand-niece recently asked her mother, “What was your middle name before Papa stole it from you?” She didn’t get it quite right, but obviously the cause will prevail :-) Now if only the Cardinals could catch up with the little girls.
Actually, I disagree with those who judge that flouting the law in this matter is the way to change things. I suspect it’s only making the die-hards more intransigent. Rationality hasn’t been notable in this dispute.
More on Sr. Johnson at the America blog – a strong coment(s) from Don Horan in her defense. I note it here because his second reference talks abou tauthority and what has and is going on.
The issue of tactics and its effect on reform is a legitimate one. I tend to favour gradualism and softer forms of reform over time.
That said, I think that the Vatican reaction and how to handle this particular conflict was poorly managed and handled. When you have authority, you really need to think about the best way to exercise it for the long term benefit of those who are entrusted to you. This is true for parents, executives, religious leaders, editors, etc.
In my work, I favour dialogue and the building of personal and professional relationships – lots of listening and dialogue, and unless it is a matter that will really cause damage, you can wait.
In my humble opinion the Vatican has it completely ass-bacwards. They moved too slowly and deliberately with the abuse scandal which struck at the heart of trust, faith, innocence. And here they are moving much too fast and abruptly for something that is not as inurious to the life of the Church. They have made their position clear. If necessary, his order could issue a statement and leave it at that for the moment and allow his religious superiors to sort out the details with him and also alllow him to reflect on tactics in this regard. You have to think about wise tactics for peace and justice and not just aim for dramatic demonstrations and so in this I agree with David.
With Sr. Johnson I think the Bishops have it right. I have read and used Sr. Johnson in my studies and I like her general approach. The Bishops have outlined areas of concern with her work without disciplining her. This can encourage dialogue and reflection and even though my first impulse is to recoil against their position, (partly because of my sympathy for the overall trajectory of Sr. Johnson’s spirituality), in justice, and as a Catholic I should read their responses and even if I disagree I have done my duty as a Catholic.
Same thing for the Vatican’s notification on Anthony Demello whose book Awareness profited me from a psychological point of view and I have encourage it for staff.
At least Sr. Elizabeth hasn’t been excommunicated, as was the nun in Arizona. That is a huge step in the right direction. Now if the bishops will only take her seriously and *talk* with her.
If the statement represents her thinking accurately, then it looks to me as if some of her thinking is objectionable. On the other hand, if it’s *all* objectionable, then that means some of Aquinas is too, because she seems to agree with him about some important things.
I think the Church needs a Court of the Theologians. Seriously. A place where they can debate their understandings of the Faith publicly and the rest of us could listen in. We’d all learn a lot, I’m sure.
With regard to tactics and reform, when you consider many successful social movements in history, it would seem you need Malcolms as well as Martins. That would appear to be particularly true in a situation where even speaking in favor of the issue is regarded as a grave offense.
Do we really do our children a service when we claim to be Catholic while teaching them that “it’s just a matter of time” before the Church changes something it claims not to have the authority to change? Don’t we owe it to them to tech them what the Church teaches, and not just what we think about it. I grew up in a generation where just this kind of nonsense and confusion was engendered and now almost no one I grew up Catholic with practices.
If I were to say that I told my children, “Reasoanble, modern people don’t really believe all that transubstantiation malarky. It’s just a matter of time before the Church comes around and admits that it’s a wheat cracker and nothing more than a symbol,” what would your reaction be? Maybe I’m not real big on original sin, or forgiveness through confession, or the communion of saints. Am I even a Catholic?
No one forces Fr Bourgeois to remain in the Church, yet he thinks his conscience dictates that his view of the matter should control within the Church and he is persecuted because it doesn’t. And you talk about the arrogance of the Vatican.
“Speaking of Anglicans, it was the illicit ordinatons of women that started the ball rolling….”
Lisa,
As a church of the Reformation, the Episcopal/Anglican church can do as it likes (as can other Protestant/Reform/16th century churches — Lutheran, Anabaptists, etc.). However, the Catholic church (Eastern and Roman) and Orthodox church can only change Tradition (in this case, of not allowing women priests) through a universal council. These first millennial churches can’t just up and change like a Protestant church. They have go through a grille of tradition — almost 2 thousand yrs old. It is the tension of their ages, time-distances, for want of a better term — between Protestant and Orthodox/Catholic churches — that makes change so unlikely to happen all at the same time. All we can hope for is that the Orthodox and Catholic churches will one day work out the women’s ordination issue some time in the future, at some future ecumenical council.
The suggestion that the church doesn’t have the power to ordain women is a disingenupous way to shut people up.
Others in the church perhaps haven’t attended a woman’s ordination but they have written for women’s ordination – Sr. Sandra Schneiders, Robert Egan SJ, William Barry SJ, etc – they haven’t been laicized or dumped from their orders.
I did not wish for my daughter to be raised in a church in which she would hear or believe that women cannot be priests and to hear from her parents that we agree/disagree with that. After serious deliberation in 2009 we moved on to the Episcopal church where no such cognitive dissonance exists.
Women’s ordination was the most prominent of the concerns that prompted this move. No regrets even as I miss much from Catholic tradition on a regular basis. I’ve become a deeper Catholic than ever in many ways in my conscious effort to read, to embrace Catholic spiritual disciplines.
William FitzGerald, I admire you for having the courage of your convictions and moving to ECUSA rather than attempting to undermine church teaching from within.
People seem to mistake the priesthood for a position of power, and to be denied access is denial of empowerment. This is the error of viewing the Church as a primarily political institution. Robert George wrote eloquently on this dissidence in general (extended paste, sorry, but not available online):
At the end of the day, a Catholic who supports [for example] legal abortion and its public funding simply cannot, at the same time, believe that the Church’s teaching – the whole of the Church’s teaching – about abortion is true. He, therefore, must not believe that the Magisterium of the Church possesses the authority to teach truly in this matter. He certainly cannot believe that this teaching is infallibly proposed. And, if not this teaching, then what moral teaching could possibly be? Thus, as he understands the authority of the Magisterium, what the Church offers in its moral teaching is guidance to be conscientiously considered, not truth to be relied on in the formation of conscience. He may very well feel obligated to thoughtfully reflect on the teachings of the Church and give them due consideration, but he will not judge himself to be bound to give to these teachings the religious assent of intellect and will that is called for by the Second Vatican Council. And, with respect to an issue such as abortion, he will not consider that he is under any obligation to form his view of the requirements of justice and the common good of political society on the basis of the Church’s teachings – even if he himself is inclined to believe that the Church might actually be right as to the immorality of deliberate feticide. Since the Church might also be wrong on the subject, it will seem to him best to leave the matter to individual consciences; indeed, it will seem to him “intolerant” and a violation of the principle of freedom of conscience not to do so.
This view of the Church and the authority of the Magisterium understands the life of the Church as essentially that of a political society that is managed by bureaucratic institutions. People who share it tend to view the papacy (together with the episcopate and the various Vatican congregations) as a concentration of power. Hence, they call for the radical democratization of ecclesiastical authority and the introduction of political-theoretical systems, such as checks and balances, to constrain power and soften its impact on those over whom it is exercised. However, this is contrary to the Church’s own historical self-understanding and to the faith it informs. The Church is not primarily a bureaucratic institution though there are, to be sure, bureaucracies to carry out many of the Church’s activities; nor is the papacy or the Magisterium a political office that exists primarily to carry out executive and legislative functions. Rather, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, the people of God. The papacy and the episcopate were established by Christ himself, not to legislate, but to teach Christ’s saving truths to his people. Contrary to its depiction in the secular media, the Magisterium does not “ban” abortion or contraception or homosexual activity; banning is a legislative act; rather, it teaches the truth that such acts are intrinsically immoral, contrary to Christ’s saving truths, incompatible with the sharing of divine life. The Church does not “make law” on moral subjects; it teaches truth. In this, it is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit.
Understanding the nature of the Church and its authority makes all the difference when it comes to issues of moral consequence. People who view the Church as essentially a political body and the Magisterium as a legislative office will chafe under the authority of decisions that strike them as restricting freedoms they enjoy. They will test these decisions by appeal to conscience – understood now, not as a judgment of what one is morally required to do or not do, but, rather, as one’s feeling about whether a certain activity – abortion, premarital sex, or whatever – is in fact morally available for one’s choice, the Church’s teaching about the wrongfulness of that activity notwithstanding. By contrast, people who understand the essentially mystical reality of the Church and the function of the Magisterium as teacher of Christ’s saving truths will adopt an attitude of humble – and grateful submission to the Church’s moral teachings, understanding those teachings as making known the mind of Christ and thus helping to make possible our salvation. Such people will treat these teachings as principles for the formation of their consciences . And, they will struggle to live in accordance with them.
Sean –
All these arguments about *who is and who is not a genuine Catholic boil down to two related questions: *can* the RCC change its doctrines? and *has* the RCC changed any doctrines?
Obviously, the questions are ambiguous. What does “the RCC” refer to exactly when each side uses the term Both sides, liberal and conservative, claim that their meanings are the real meanings, that is that *their meaning* is the meaning that the good Lord wants the term to have. Everything hinges, therefore, on what the Lord means by “the RCC” — and, for practical purposes, how we find out just what the Lord means by “RCC”.
No, this is not just a linguistic issue: meaningful discussion of controversial issues requires that we get clear about what the term “RCC” properly should mean. When I say its “proper meaning” I’m talking about the ekklesia referred to in the NT which we all agree is still in existence today. Bue exactly WHAT IS IT??? The proper answer to that must necessarily include its necessary characteristics, its properties, so to speak. If we don’t know what the RCC actually is and what its properties are today, we can hardly talk meaningfully about what its doctrines actually are.
Conservatives insist that those who disagree with them are pseudo=Catholics, while liberals think that, no, *you conservatives* are the pseudo-Catholics. You annoint yourselves as the real thing, but we think you are not authorized to do so. So who is to say? And who is to say what?
We really should discuss the meaning(s) of “the RCC* sometime, but I fear most of us don’t have the historical and Scriptural knowledge to do so very competently. It would come down to which-historian-do-you-trust and which=exegete=do=you=trust and which-pope-do you trust. Yes, which pope. At the core of the problem seems to be whether or not popes have ever contradicted each other — or themselves.
I wish somebody would start a thread on this. We waste a lot of time on it as it stands.
“…they haven’t been laicized….”
Crystal,
True enough, but there is something about Fr. Bourgeois’s critics recording point after point of his “activities.” It’s is also one thing to attend a women’s ordination and another thing to form one’s lips to manifestos and words in support of it. Although I have mixed feelings about this (it would make more sense if he were a bishop), I can see why Rome reacts. If it didn’t, each Catholic priest would publicly comprise a Catholic church apiece on the subject (as individual lay Catholics comprise already). I also think it is reacting in anticipation of the negative opinions of other “practicing” Catholics, believing religious contention on a public level is the devil’s harvest.
For now, JPIIs conclusion in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (no authority to ordain women to the presbyterate/episcopate) remains an unfounded assertion, and canon 749.3 places the burden of infallible teaching on the magisterium. This is church law.
Cardinal Ratzinger clarified in his Responsum that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was an act of the ordinary papal magisterium and, as such, did not constitute “ex cathedra” infallible teaching. According to the CDF head, JPII claimed that his conclusion merely reflected the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium. However, the world’s Catholic bishops have never claimed as a body that it is infallible teaching that they lack the authority to ordain women. Even during the Soviet Era, a Catholic bishop ordained one or more women to the underground presbyterate. If a truly secret vote were held among all the world’s bishops in communion with the pope, would each and every bishop agree the church lacks the authority to ordain women? I seriously doubt it.
Theologian Francis Sullivan offers a succinct assessment of this issue at http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/sulliva1.asp.
The CTSA’s response can be found at http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/ctsa.asp, and other scholarly views can be found at http://www.womenpriests.org/scholars.asp.
The proverbial “ball” is in Rome’s court, and the Vatican has yet to respond to the challenges put forth.
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is opinion.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks, P Flanagan.
I think most arguments against women’s ordination are hokum dressed in theological finery that mask ideology and politics with respect to gender. What I read above is the language of power used to justify (through mystification) not order per se but the perpetuation of a particular order. I reject that binary.
That said, I also truly believe that it is wrong in spirit and fact to call traditionalists misogynists because they believe in a cosmological order that understands ministry in gendered terms. If I had world enough and time I would stay in “the Church” and seek to undermine it from within. As it happens, I want to have my equality in ministry now.
I want my daughter to experience this reality at close hand and not think about it in terms of what ‘the other guys’ do down the street. I lack the patience and the faith to see beyond my one lifetime, frankly. I also conclude that leaving the RCC–in droves even–might over time exercise the leverage not available from within. Either that, or the purer, smaller church can enjoy the extra pew space. Imagine if women, especially, said “I’m not raising my daughter or son under these conditions.”
Ann
Avery Dulles, best known for his work on ecclesiology, once noted that the Council fathers opted in Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, to begin the document with the title “The Mystery of the Church”. This was a deliberate choice because while we can find many definitions, all will be partial and allude the fullness of what is intended by the term.
That does not mean that the contours cannot be described nor that the form of governance and its constitution cannot clearly be articulated. All of this is done. What is does mean, is that the explanation of the Church needs to be done in a spirit of humility and conscious of the fact that in describing the Church we are ultimately in the presence of a mystery.
Simone Weil wrote eloquently about her relationship with the Church in “Wating for God” she said that what prevented her from entering the Church formally through baptism was two simple words “anathema sit”. At the same time she supported and affirmed the right of the Church to define dogam. She writes much more and her letter in this regard is an excellent mature, respectful reflection.
In all of this, she considered herself fully a member in Christ’s mystical body and called to be at the intersection of faith and the world.
“I believe strongly in freedom of conscience, but I also would ask in what circumstances faithful Catholics are truly compelled by their consciences to openly defy authority. The pope and the bishops do speak with real authority. It is a good question how much you defer to that authority, even when your conscience tells you that authority is wrong. Certainly I would support a Catholic’s right in his or her personal life to make decisions of conscience directly affecting himself or herself that were not in accord with Church teachings. But it becomes another matter when you feel your conscience tells you it is your duty to wage a public crusade against the Church’s authoritative teaching on a certain matter. I do not think that people who are strongly supportive of women’s ordination, and who feel it is an injustice not to ordain women, necessarily are compelled by their conscience to wage a public campaign in open defiance of authority.”
Let’s substitute “state authority” for “church authority” and “state legislators and police officers” for “pope and bishops”.
If civil disobedience is OK, why not ecclesial disobedience?
i mean elude
Hi, Crystal, very nice to see you commenting here again!
I can’t speak to the other examples you cite, but one of the factors with Sr. Elizabeth seems to be that the book being criticized is intended to be a catechetical tool and is targeted toward a general/popular audience.
FWIW – as a general proposition, I don’t have an issue with the national bishops’ conference playing a monitoring/watchdog role on such things – surely that is the bishop’s job, to ensure that the faith is passed along accurately.
I can’t comment on the specific complaints about this book, as I haven’t read it.
I also think that dialogue between Sr. Elizabeth and the bishops’ doctrinal committee is a good idea. Perhaps it will happen.
For those who own the book: was it printed with a nihil obstat and imprimatur? Istm that custom would be useful in heading off this type of problem – and perhaps might even generate dialogue – prior to publication and distribution.
P Flanagan, you wrote, “People seem to mistake the priesthood for a position of power, and to be denied access is denial of empowerment.”
Your observation reminded me of James Davidson & Dean Hoge’s description of the “JPII priest” in their “Mind the gap: the return of the lay-clerical divide” in COMMONWEAL:
“Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and other church officials have openly expressed their preference for a more traditional model of lay-clergy relationship, one that reemphasizes the difference in authority between the ordained and the nonordained. As a result, greater numbers of men who agree with this view have entered seminaries and have been ordained. In 2007, newly ordained priests are more likely to adhere to a cultic model of priesthood and to see the laity’s role as limited or advisory. They are likely to see themselves as the ultimate authority when it comes to administrative decisions.”
I should add that (at age 63) I remember this notion of priesthood quite well from my days before Vatican II.
Thanks for the memory!
If civil disobedience is OK, why not ecclesial disobedience?
Joseph,
There is no comparison. The state nowadays does not claim divine authority. The Church does.
If the Catholic Church has no more authority and commands no more respect and obedience than civil government, why bother to be Catholic and stay in? Join another Church or give up religion altogether. It is one thing to feel the Church must change. It is another thing to feel it is your right and duty to change the Church.
“The papacy and the episcopate were established by Christ himself.”
No, they were not.
“…why not ecclesial disobedience?”
Joseph,
Because it is not ripe in the consciences/hearts of most Catholics. If it were, by now it would have run steadily down to every parishioner on the block — where people and doctrines don’t necessarily meet.
I don’t expect this conversation to go anywhere on either Fr.Bourgeois or women’s ordination.
However, those who claim they “really understand” authority in the church na\\and argue circularly therefrom add very little to the discussion.
As to the ineptitudes of current authorities, we have a new thread on Sr. Johnson here (as well as one at America.)
Frankly, I think our current crop of Bishops resemble pharisees more than the Lord in the way they teach and govern.
Footnote: I’m not sure by what wisdom Mr. chicetto knows whats in the hearts of most Catholics.
“The state nowadays does not claim divine authority. The Church does.”
A claim is one thing. Actual authority is another. Political theory in some quarters acknowledges that a state legitimately constituted does have some kind of real authority in the grand scheme of things from God, or a Creator, or a Supreme Deity.
Why stay in the church or in the state? Why decide to leave?
These questions apply equally to boh spheres.
Even Jesus challenged the religious — and, by extension, the political — authorities of his day and place. He paid the supreme price for doing so.
It is one’s right to abide by one’s conscience — even in opposition to ecclesial authority (Ratzinger acknowledged as much years ago). This fundamental teaching of the church does not suggest, much less require, one’s departure from the church.
In the women’s ordination controversy, we’re not even dealing with an infallible teaching of the church. We’re dealing with doctrine, not with dogma.
“Frankly, I think our current crop of Bishops resemble pharisees more than the Lord in the way they teach and govern.”
How’s that?
Mr. Chichetto, you may be right. I must wonder how many “average” church-going Catholics really even *know* about the women’s ordination issue, i.e., the history, the arguments pro and con. If they get their church news and commentary only from their diocesan paper, I suspect they have been short-changed as citizens of the church.
Bob, I would regard you and others both here and at NCROnline as exceptions to the above since these news and opinion outlets are not controlled by the bishops. Unless you and similarly informed Catholics discuss the women’s ordination and other “hot button” issues (upcoming Roman Missal, for example) within your parish “neighborhood”, I have to wonder how many of your neighbors would be able to intelligently discuss such topics.
I’m not optimistic.
For the hierarchs, I suspect, “ignorance is bliss”.
“…not ripe in the hearts/minds of most Catholics…” By this standard, ecclesial disobedience regarding the status of gays would be justified now, if recent survey data tells us anything meaningful about Catholic hearts/minds.
Abe, briefly, they emphasize rules/regs(canons -mosts are canon lawyers who came up thru the chancery route) than pastoral approach.
The rules/regs approach is mainly to “do as i say” – essentiall IMO a power/control way of doing things.
Hi Jim :)
Here are the links for anyone who might want to read what Robert. Egan and Sandra Schneiders wrote …
“Why not? Scripture, history & women’s ordination” by Egan ….. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_7_135/ai_n29481721/
“Did Jesus Exclude Women from Priesthood?” by Schneiders ….. http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/schneide.asp
According to this post, Roy Bourgeois was excommunicated in 2008 because he attended a woman’s ordination. But he is now being laicized and must leave his order not because of that action but because he continues to hold the belief that women can be ordained. So, I was asking why others who have spoken out for women’s ordination are not similarly laicized and expelled from their orders. It seems to me that Bourgeois is being unfairly punished as an example.
George D –
Dulles considered many of the different metaphors for the Church, but did he offer a definition? I’d like to know what it is if he did. Vatican II says the Church is “the people of God”, but I dare say that that is also has many meanings.
Strictly speaking, “the Church” cannot be defined. It is an artifact, not a substance with independent existence apart from the persons and other elements which comprise it. So it can’t be “defined” in the logical sense of that term. But one hopes it can be described in such a way that we can distinguish it from other realities and know it when we find it. Such descriptions require that we say what its necessary elements are, how they are are uniquely related, what its unique function(s) are, etc.
I don’t doubt that there can be different descriptions that might set it off from other things in such a way that the descriptions lets us know it when we find it. Just as I can give you different descriptions of my brother that would allow you to recognize him if you met him, so there might be different descriptions of the Church that would allow you to know it when you find it. Indeed, I think there are different aspects of the Church that appeal to different seekers of God that show them that the RCC is indeed the ekklesia referred to in the NT. But what are these elements and characteristics?
More important for our discussion, how must the Church be described so that we could recognize just who speaks authoritatively for it and what the limits of that authority are? I don’t think we have such a description, but it’s desperately needed.
And it’s not just a problem of describing it. There is the problem of the methodology of establishing just what those descriptions should/could be. For instance, whose historical voices count in establishing the early meanings of “the ekklesia”. Enter the problem of a theological epistemology.
That would no doubt get into the meaning of ekklesia in the NT, but then what else is found in the NT and tradition that tells us what the Roman Catholic ekklesia is.
Oops — that last sentence should be edited out. It makes no sense there.
David N,
Change happens in the church in part when people who dissent persist against all odds. John Courtney Murray SJ and his belief in religious liberty is a good example.
Irene–
I don’t mean to sound smart-alecky, but how would you respond to your daughter if she asks you why there’s a God the Father in the blessed trinity, but no god the mother? Why God chose to have a Son and not a daughter?
“…suspect they have been short-changed….”
Joseph,
Don’t underestimate ordinary Catholics. It is not important to many of them right now. It isn’t that they haven’t absorbed all the pros and cons of the issue; rather, it’s that they don’t care to so long as they (those who go weekly) receive the Eucharist, hear a decent homily. Of course, a few are beating all the bells to attact attention to the issue, but they rarely get as far as the porch of most parishioners. They don’t get invited in, so to speak. Most active Catholics are into multi-national partnered parishes, social work, and personal issues (dealing with jobs, families, etc.) But ordination of women — as a huge, all-consuming issue? It’s too spotted with sacristy wax to move most right now. And I admit, that is a pity!
“By this standard, ecclesial disobedience regarding the status of gay would be justified now….”
Mary,
Yes, to a degree, because all families know someone gay, accept/love him or her, either inside or outside of the family. But it’s not like they are pushing pushing non-celibate, sexually active priests. They see THAT as ecclesial disobedience (not loving gay family and friends as disobedient).
Crystal,
“…Bourgeois is being unfairly punished….”
Yes and no and to a degree. No cause like women’s ordination is without some latent charm derived from notoriety. I think Fr. Bourgeois likes the attention and knows the ultimatum is inevitable. But if he is embarrassing his religious community (Maryknoll), why does he stay in it, want to identify with it? It’s not an issue of fairness simply regarding him anymore. Bourgeois’s superior beleives he is in conformity with fairness because he is in conformity with the rules of his religious community. In being fair to Fr. Bourgeois, he also has to think of being fair to other members of Maryknoll. Fr. B. is not making it any easier for him when their boundaries, ideals are so close. Is it more fair to imperil the whole Maryknoll community for the sake of Fr. B.’s cause? Is it more fair to measure everyone’s foot in Maryknoll with Fr. B’s shoe? Is he the only one who can see through the whole century and beyond (regarding this issue)?
@jamesc–Precisely just how does RoyB “imperil the whole Maryknoll community”? What exactly do you think Rome would (not could, would) do if the order had done nothing in response to his appearances related to Pink Smoke (or had merely reprimanded him again)?
James,
Fr. B has done so much good – the Wikipedia page on him is inspiring …. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Bourgeoi
It seems though that all that he accomplished in over 30 years as a Maryknoll priest can be dismissed because of one act, and not an act like protecting pedophiles (Cardinal Law) or writing off Vatican II (SSPX bishops) …. those acts apparently get you promoted or un-excommunicated.
What harm was he doing as an excommunicated priest remaining in his order?
Sorry, here’s the correct link … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Bourgeois
As far as obedience goes, the VAST majority of Catholics I know (of all ages mind you) use the Church’s position on issues within the church and outside as a starting point and then pretty much follow their own conscience. Look at the use of birth control by Catholics as well as the fact that most younger Catholics don’t buy the church’s teaching about homosexuality. Lots of priests follow where prayer leads them – even if it is not where the church wants them to go — and thank God for it!
It is something I’ve always liked about our church — that the people and many of our priests who are actually in the parish “trenches” — and know how it really works — — operate a bit like Poland under Soviet control. They create their own black market economy and live the way they want while towing the comoanhy line. FRankly it makes me proud to be a Catholic. And this is nothing new – I listen to everything the Pope says and do my best to follow him — but, I like a little rebellion in the pews! Who was handing out birth control advice to many Catholic women in the 60s? The parish priests! My love and prayers to Fr. Roy. Bourgeois.
“…imperil the whole Maryknoll community?”
Mary,
Usually, religious communities abide by counsels (evangelical), promises, and ideals which are prior to those of an individual member’s causes, career goals. These ideals, rules try to keep members from becoming exclusive, clannish, too engrossing, etc., which attitudes could lead them to shut out the common purpose or goals of being a community of brothers (or sisters).
To do otherwise, only caricatures community and community life.
Could one religious imperil his/her community? I think so if he puts his cause or career above the norms of the common life, the norms of the community. The more one indulges in a cause, apart from the community (and in opposition to the bishops), the more he will demand his community to comply with or accept his tactics, be tolerant of his means of gaining his objectives. This can imperil community life, splitting members, forcing some to take sides, with neither side seeing or feeling for those of the future (students in religious formation). Such actions can cause great discontent and thus imperil community life.
Why be racing in a community car with a priest who refuses to take his foot of the pedal? There’s no attraction to community life in that.
“What harm….”
Crystal,
Yes, a great priest, whom I have never met by chance in the street, is in wikipedia, and is dealing with all the feelings of illegality a bishop can impose on him. I will pray for him.
“…no attraction to community life in that.” Sez you.
That answer was pure speculation on your part–we have no reason to believe the Maryknolls were coming apart at the seams because one priest took a stand based on his conscientious disagreement with a doctrine. You assert without evidence that his stance is about careerism or a cause that is inconsistent with the most fundamental ideals of the order. “Exclusive, clannish, engrossing,” driving away potential members?? Ridiculous. It’s one thing for you to hold the position that the Order is entitled to take this action based on canon law and its own internal rules. It’s entirely another to try to justify it with speculative nonsense about an imperiled order. Meh.
Change happens in the church in part when people who dissent persist against all odds. John Courtney Murray SJ and his belief in religious liberty is a good example.
Crystal,
John Courtney Murray persisted, but privately. He did not defy his superiors. His case is not comparable to that of Roy Bourgeois.
David – yeah, I see your point.
Lots of priests follow where prayer leads them – even if it is not where the church wants them to go
Then it isn’t prayer and they’re not priests.
Of all the trivialities that preoccupy fashionable minds, this obsession with priestesses is quite the trivial-est.
“Irene–
I don’t mean to sound smart-alecky, but how would you respond to your daughter if she asks you why there’s a God the Father in the blessed trinity, but no god the mother? Why God chose to have a Son and not a daughter?”
Mark- She hasn’t asked me that; if she did, I would just tell her I don’t know why. But I don’t believe that the Catholic Church is right about absolutely everything all of the time, and I don’t think we’re required to believe- or pretend to believe- we’re always right on everything.
Regarding women’s ordination, our policies and doctrines are not only wrong, but hurtful to people. So in that instance I need to speak out and say its wrong and teach my children that it’s wrong. I also told my daughter that most American Catholics believe women should be ordained (which is true) and that I’m confident that one day we’ll be able to change things so that women called to be priests can answer God’s call.
J.a.m – you don’t seem to have any knowledge of Church history — some of our saints were excommunicated or punished for independent thinking during their time and now they hold the highest honor in our Chruch.
From NYT article about saints:
Many people think of the saints as docile, but Mother Guérin is not the only saint to have found herself at odds with local bishops, church officials or even the Vatican. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake at the behest of church officials. The writings of the great theologian Thomas Aquinas came under suspicion during his lifetime in the 13th century. And Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, was jailed during the Spanish Inquisition over complaints about his ideas on prayer.
Read more…and learn! Dissent, for better or worse, has always been a feature of Catholic piety. And thank God for it!
Fr. Roy follows a long line of dissenters — what the Catholic Church will eventually make of him remains to be seen.
Who is(was) a more obedient Catholic — JP II’s favorite Fr. Maciel or Roy Bourgeois?
Get real.
“That answer was pure speculation on your part.”
Mary,
One can very easily imperil the fabric that keeps community members together: that fabric being common life (which encompasses common apostolates, common purse, common ministry, worship, etc.) This common-ness stares like an eye of the founder (of the community), whose charism is oftentimes concealed in a community’s depth of service and prayer. Yet this charism is always at the center of community life, not at the limits of it. You run alongside it, as it were, trying to take it with you, take its ideals with you.
Members of a community like Maryknoll share this strength, this charism with wach other in service, ministry based on their Rule or Constitutions. If one member has an issue with a bishop, canon law, church doctrine, he shouldn’t feel he has a right to publicly hoist his rejection or anger on the banner of his community. If he can’t comply with common life, the community Rule, canon law, he should move on for the sake of the community.
Why, for example, should Fr. Bourgeois’s community (Maryknoll) members have to absorb his anger, his way of “seeing things,” bitterness over a doctrine of the church? Since when does Fr. B’s action have to become a milestone of righteousness, so to speak, for the rest of his conferes? They have values, too. They count too.
What could RB do at this point that would avoid his separation from his order? What would be the substance of an acceptable repairing of the breach? Honest point of information.
WilliamFG, my understanding is the letter from the Order. gave him 2wks to recant.
JamesC,
I do appreciate your explication of community life, but my point was that we have no evidence to believe RoyB has damaged the fabric of the Maryknoll community. I don’t see his dissent from a teaching as inconsistent with their worship, apostalate, ministry, etc., or that the stance he has taken silences other Maryknolls or forces them to share his opinion. Nor has he ever claimed his belief in this matter represents the opinion of his Order. I respectfully suggest it’s unfair to characterize him as bitter, rejected, etc. In his public statements his tone is quite reasonable and even self-deprecating. It seems to me that his priestly life has honored the Maryknoll founders’ charism. Somehow, I think the community that produced two martyrs in El Salvador could survive standing by RoyB’s conscientious dissent from a teaching. IMHO, it’s a shame they won’t.
Yes, I understand the timeline. I was asking, really, what it means to recant of something. What kind of rhetorical act is a recantation and what are the conditions under which one can do that?
One can regret saying or doing something, or promise not to do or say something again. Does recanting demand an authentic intellectual conversion?
“Does recanting demand an authentic intellectual conversion?” Not if history is any guide ;)
Seems to me by the time someone has to be ordered to recant, it’s too late–in most cases, there’s no rhetoric that can keep them from sounding like liars or hostages.
Your question raises the issue of what conversations he had internally with members of his order through the years this has been happening, what persuasive efforts were ongoing? Were there sit-downs to discuss his reasoning, any dialogue at all, or was it from the start a matter of “this isn’t the teaching, we’re not even supposed to talk about it as an open subject, so close your mouth and keep quiet” kind of thing? The tipping point should have been preaching at the ordination, but they didn’t kick hin out then; instead, the claimed last straw was the appearance in Pink Smoke. All this after the blunder over pulling then reinstating funding for SOAW. I don’t questions the authority to discipline him, even to kick him out; the reactions and timing just seem odd, from the outside looking in, of course.
“Don’t underestimate ordinary Catholics. It is not important to many of them right now. It isn’t that they haven’t absorbed all the pros and cons of the issue; rather, it’s that they don’t care to so long as they (those who go weekly) receive the Eucharist, hear a decent homily.”
James, my experience (an experience I shared till I got involved with dotCom and NCROnline) is that, like you noted, most Catholics don’t care one way or the other; the issue is not important to them. Go to Sunday mass, receive communion, get one’s ticket punched, leave, and be done with it till next weekend. If they get a local Catholic paper, it presents one-sided commentary, and the news lacks perspective. They cannot discuss an issue like women’s ordination because, contrary to your point, they do not know the issue. Lack of concern and/or preoccupation with more mundane matters and lack of exposure to the substance of an issue go hand in hand, based on my own experience.
I appreciate your perspectives on the life of religious community.
My question to anyone here: Did fellow members of Sr. Joan’s Benedictine community actually vote on the matter of supporting or not supporting Joan’s speaking out on church issues? If the Maryknollers were given the opportunity to vote on supporting or not supporting Bourgeois in his endeavors, might such a vote be determinative of a religious community taking or not taking a public stance on an issue?
I share Bourgeois’s support for women’s ordination, but should not fellow members of a community be given the opportunity to vote for/against community endorsement of a member’s activity?
Ann,
First, it always seems to me that progressive Catholics have an extraordinary abilty to find ambiguity where normal people can’t.
I don’t “annoint” myself anything. I practice my Catholic faith as best I can and I belive what the church teaches, but I don’t know if I am a good Catholic. I probably am not. I also don’t judge whether you or anyone else is a good Catholic. Sorting that out is for you.
I ask the questions I do becuase I am honestly baffled by these conversations. If you don’t accept that the “guys with the hats and rings” have authority, then there is no point in the conversation. At that point, all you are talking about is power. They are men with power over an instituttion – nothing more. If you think they teach evil on this, why do you listen to them on anything? Why is what they say about transubstantiation any more valid than what they say about priestesses? If all that you are really complaining about is that they won’t use their power to allow women priests, you are no better than them. All you are saying is that if you (or people who agree with you) had the power you would make women priests, and then those of us who object within the Church just have to lump it
I ask the question “are you really Catholic” not to accuse, but to point out that being Catholic can’t mean what you or I or any individual defines it to be, and that being Catholic has to involve beliefs, and that those beliefs can’t be just our own, but backed by some authority that we accept and that are shared.
Sean, you wrote, “[B]eing Catholic can’t mean what you or I or any individual defines it to be, and that being Catholic has to involve beliefs, and that those beliefs can’t be just our own, but backed by some authority that we accept and that are shared.”
Most church teaching is not infallible. I think most of us, liberal or conservative, would agree that “being Catholic” would necessarily entail accepting on faith those teachings contained in the “deposit of faith”, i.e., doctrinal revelation given us by Jesus for our salvation.
As adults, we should not ignore our education and experience (even a paragraph in the CCC’s section on “Moral Conscience” suggests as much).
Since most official doctrine is not dogma, I think the words of a future pope are quite apropos: “Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism”.
(Joseph Ratzinger in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II ,Vol. V., pg. 134 (Ed) H. Vorgrimler, New York, Herder and Herder, 1967).
The teaching on women’s ordination, for example, is official doctrine, but it has not been clearly established as dogma, a requirement imposed by canon 749.3. Church law clearly puts the burden on the magisterium to make its case that a doctrine must be accepted as dogma. The church’s ancient practice/teaching on reception comes into play here.
I have no problem accepting the bishops’ authority to teach, but I’m not going to fail to distinguish between dogmatic and non-infallible teaching, especially when my education and experience tell me the official teachers are wrong on a given matter.
Responsible church citizenship demands no less of adults.
” If you don’t accept that the “guys with the hats and rings” have authority, then there is no point in the conversation.”
Sean –
Of course they have authority, great authority. But they can misuse their offices and, yes, make mistakes.
I still haven’t gotten through to you: Ii view you the same way you apparently view me. I think you claim understanding of the Faith and your favored bishops claim understanding of the Faith that they simply don’t possess. Their teachings are pseudo=Catholic ones. Take this new use of the word “definitive” in “definitive teachings”. As is widely recognized, its use was an attempt by JP II to guarantee a status for his pronouncements that they don’t possess.
To have authority is to have a power. But one can exercise a power well or badly. Sometimes popes and bishops exercise their powers badly.
As to the ambiguity of words, words are essentially ambiguous because there is no necessary relationship between a word and its meaning, and different people have different experiences with the uses of words, so there is always at least the possibility that we misunderstand each other. There is also the possibility that we (including popes and bishops) misunderstand God!
This is not a matter of being skeptical, it’s a matter of admitting our limitations as human beings. Conservatives, I think, find this fact very had to bear. You seem to have such a great need to be certain that you, frankly, covince yourselves that you have more certitude than we are entitled to. But we have to deal with the world that God put us into, and in this world words are ambiguous and we just have to do our best to get closer and closer to what God Himself means by His Revelation.
Or do you have some private sort of experiencee that guarantees that your beliefs are all exactly right? And why should I be bound by *your* private experience?
“I ask the questions I do becuase I am honestly baffled by these conversations. If you don’t accept that the “guys with the hats and rings” have authority, then there is no point in the conversation. At that point, all you are talking about is power. They are men with power over an instituttion – nothing more. If you think they teach evil on this, why do you listen to them on anything? ”
Sean –
I loudly affirm that they do have the authority to speak for the Church, but that to speak successfully with authority they must also have evidence that what they are preaching is true. Too often bishops and popes just repeat old claims that weren’t true in the first place (e.g., about slavery and usury). This leads to contradictions in Church teachings, and contradictions are indications that something somewhere is FALSE. So dissent sometimes becomes an obligation, an obligation to point out that the Church in its official statements has gone off the rails.
i believe that most of what the bishops and popes teach is true, plus they are supposed to be the guardians of the evidence for what God’s word truly is. This is why the caves of the Vatican, the emphasis on book-learning, especially history and philosophy. The intellectural tradition of the Church is vast and contains great truths (as far as I can see, anyway), and I treasure it. But I also recognize the diversity found there, even contradictions about some matters. .
I don’t have to think the hierarchy is perfect to realize that this is still God’s Church and His Revelation is there waiting to be unveiled. But it is not unveiled in one fell swoop. History teaches us that the discovery of the meaning(s) of Scripture and Tradition is a process in time requiring, as you say, the input of many. What I don’t understand is why you find this process so threatening to your faith. Yes, in my experience the faith of conservatives often seems shakier than that of liberals, for the reason that so many of them can’t tolerate even the possibility that they are wrong. It must be painful, and so I can see why some conservatives (not you) threaten dissenters with Hell for saying things are not quite so certain as you seem to think they are.
.
Sean is right to note that those who wish to advocate for a change in the status quo can often find ambiguity where others find clarity. But this is hardly a trait exclusive to progressive Catholics. Clarity and ambiguity are both rhetorical constructions to be employed in debate.
If the Maryknollers were given the opportunity to vote on supporting or not supporting Bourgeois in his endeavors, might such a vote be determinative of a religious community taking or not taking a public stance on an issue?
——-
Joseph, two years ago, when the Maryknollers voted for a new superior, the man they elected was rejected by the Vatican, so they might be chary of voting for or against anything now.
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican-rejects-maryknoll-brother-elected-superior
@JosephJ.
Re your earlier query about Sr. Joan. A great counter-example to the current situation with the Maryknolls. Not sure I have the details exactly right, but I’ll never forget the courage and integrity shown by the Erie Benedictines.
When the Vatican ordered Sr. Joan not to speak at a women’s ordination conference (in Ireland I think) and she persisted in her intention to attend, they next pressed the Prioress (Christine Vladimiroff) to officially compel her obedience. Because she did not believe she could in good conscience silence Sr. Joan, the Prioress responded to the Vatican with a letter refusing to do so. Though it was not required of them, all but 1 member of the Erie community chose to co-sign the letter. Lots of Benedictines elsewhere also chimed in with support for the prioress’ decision. The result? The Vatican backed down.
Ann,
I don’t find inquiry and knowledge a threat. Frankly, I am fairly certain there will never be priestesses in the church, so I don’t find the discussion troubling in that way. I ask the question, what about me and people like in these discussions not because I am threatened by the discussion, but to point out that you essentially engage in what you accuse the other side of – only worse. You feel like an outsider but you would have no problem turning me into one. The difference is that being a Catholic, and practicing as a Catholic is a choice, and you would take some of what that means to me without my choice.
Also, the things you emphasize as being FALSE were not integral to the practice of the faith, but dealt with the moral teaching of the Church regarding social institutions and practices independent of the Church. They were about the Church’s reaction to the world, not the Church’s definition of itself. The teaching about who can receive holy orders is a different type of teaching than how banks and merchants can lend money.
Yes, authority comes with power, but power does not imply authority. Authority means that those who exercise power are authorized, by the Author. It doesn’t mean they are perfect, but it seems to me that more often than not in these discussions the tenor is that these “men with hats and rings” do almost everything just because they can, not because they have authority. Including defining key aspects of what the Church is. I simply think that if that were my view, I would have nothing to do with them, and would doubt everything they say.
On the ambiguity point, of course language is ambiguous. But whether Bourgois laid hands on, or concelebrated, or was a mere witness, is immaterial to whether his behavior constituted open and extreme disobedience and defiance that the Church had every right (and authority) to respond to.
There was a little bit of a stir in my neighborhood a year or so ago, when a prominent orthodox rabbi appointed a woman rabbi- I think she was the first orthodox woman rabbi in the US. I was just an outsider looking in, but I think there was some fuss within the orthodox community, some ultraorthodox insisted that a woman rabbi meant by definition the synagogue in question was not orthodox. Anyway, the fuss apparently died down and the woman rabbi is now dean of a yeshiva training even more orthodox women rabbis (http://yeshivatmaharat.org/). The male rabbi who made the initial appointment is still part of the Rabbinical Council of America, and the sky has not fallen.
I find that story very encouraging.
“You feel like an outsider but you would have no problem turning me into one.”
Sean –
Indeed, I do NOT feel like an outsider. My point is that your continued query “Why do they stay?” implies that YOU think that I’m an outsider. This isn’t important except that it gives people outside the impression that the conservatives are the orthodox, when in fact many conservatives are the pseudo-orthodox, thata is, they claim certainty they don’t have sufficient evidence to justify, and many even stubbornly even deny that the Church has ever reversed doctrines.
Neither do I think you are an outsider. What I think is that you are a Catholic who is wrong about some things. That does not mean I think you should go and join the Lefebrists. You have a right to be wrong if you are sincere about it, as I believe you are. But, again, your sincerity doesn’t make you right.
“Also, the things you emphasize as being FALSE were not integral to the practice of the faith, but dealt with the moral teaching of the Church regarding social institutions and practices independent of the Church.”
Sean —
The Church properly teaches morals. Some practices of social institutions are matters of morals, so the Churchh properly should teach the morality of those practices. Slavery was one such practice. Usury was a practice of business institutions. The Church properly addressed those problems and ultimately saw that it had been wrong.
If you remove the Church from talking about the morality of social institutions, you remove the Church from all considerations of political matters which are a matter of morality, e.g., the morality of abortion and war and cheating workers of their wages.
@David N, 9:23 am:
Everyone has a right to follow his or her own conscience, but what about duties to give religious assent to authoritative statements like the one P Flanagan quotes? What about obedience?
“The church will have to learn how experience can be a source of grace; learn to speak less dogmatically and act less hierarchically; learn to communicate more and excommunicate less; learn to care as much about people as it does about structures and forms.”
Miriam Therese Winter, The Women-Church Movement. “The Christian Century”, March 8, 1989.
James F. Keenan, S.J., Professor of moral theology and director of the doctoral program at Weston Jesuit School of Theology, was one of the main organizers of the successful mammoth international seminar on ethics and moral life, for which over 600 professor or lecturers of moral theology took part in Trento. In his book “Moral Wisdom, Lessons and Texts from the Catholic Tradition” he wrote that when Thomas first arrived at Paris in 1252 to teach (namely, to comment on Peter’s Lombard’s Sentences, since every budding professor lectured on them as their first university lecture appointment…) he dutifully referred to Lombard as the Master. However, on the question of conscience, Thomas straightforwardly rejected Lombard. “Here the Master is wrong” (hic magister falsum dicit). Lombard had argued that one is not obliged to follow one’s conscience when at odds with Church teaching. Thomas responded that we ought to die excommunicated rather than violate our conscience.” (Scriptum super libros Sententiarum, IV,38,2.4 q..a 3; See also IV.27.1.2.q.a.4ad 3; IV.27,3.3. expositio.)
It is true that Aquinas was censored by the Archbishop of Paris. Nevertheless, the teachings of Aquinas and not those of the Archbishop of Paris stood the test of time.
And lest we forget —-
“For Newman, conscience represents the inner complement and limit of the church principle. Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which is in the last resort beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle of opposition to increasing totalitarianism. Genuine ecclesiastical obedience is distinguished from any totalitarian claim which cannot accept any ultimate obligation of this kind beyond the reach of its dominating will.
Joseph Ratzinger on article 16 of Gaudem et Spes, in Volume 5 of the “Commentary on Documents of Vatican II”, edited by Vorgrimler (New York/London 1969).
Many here argue that the Catholic tradition of not ordaining women is following the practice of Jesus. It can be (and has been) argued that what Jesus did during his lifetime was a far cry from what the church calls ordination today.
However, tradition is not an arbitrary thing; we believe that it is the leading of the Spirit of God to preserve the unity of the church. On what grounds can and should the church change a tradition? When that tradition begins to compete with the gospel and no longer serves the gospel.
The ordination of women is a theoretical possibility within the gospel; there are no instances where the gospels state that women cannot be ordained. It is church tradition, not the gospel, that prohibits the practice. A basic question is whether that tradition still serves the gospel, or has it come to work against the gospel. The tradition of an all male clergy has come to compete with the gospel, to be a stumbling block to the gospel, and no longer serves the gospel. There is a need for changing such a tradition and instituting the practice of the ordination of women.
The Spirit can, and often does, make the church do something that it has never done before, as part of the ongoing unfolding of the will of God among the people of God. It is for the benefit of the life of the church to understand ordination as the Spirit’s bestowal of a unique gift of office apart from the community of the baptized, wiand there is no scriptural base to exclude women from this office.
Fr.Borgeois has written and published his inability to recant and i guess that’s the end with Maryknoll.
Fr. Jim Martin has the letter and(IMO) a good commentray at the “In All Things” blog at America.
i’m told that Fr. Bourgeois, now that he’s seperated, plans to live on less than $500/month sS and to “eat with a clear conscience in soup kitchens.”
I think many will try to donate/support him beyond that -for a while.
But, I think his sincerity rises above a lot of the snark said about him, and though he didn’t folow the submissive path of Murray, Merton etc. – in this day and age of polarization/drift, I’m not sure that would be such a great path either.