Fr. Roy Bourgeois has 30 days to recant on women’s ordination
…Or the Maryknoll priest faces excommunication, according to the CDF. NCR has the story, based on a letter Bourgeois sent to the Vatican.
According to Bourgeois’ letter, which is dated Nov. 7, the congregation has given the priest 30 days to recant his “belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in our Church, or (he) will be excommunicated.” The letter indicates that Bourgeois received notification from the congregation Oct. 21.
Bourgeois, a priest for 36 years, attended the ordination of Janice Sevre-Duszynska in Lexingon, Ky., Aug. 9 and preached a homily.
If Bourgeois is excommunicated at the end of 30 days, that would come just before the mass rally and protest against the U.S. Army’s School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Ga., that Bourgeois has organized for 19 years. In recent years, more than 15,000 people, many of them Catholic university students, have joined the three daylong rally and demonstration.
Question: Is holding his view on women’s ordination an “excommunicable” offense? Some might respond reflexively yes–or no–but there must be a canon firing in here somewhere. Or is it because he is a priest, in particular?
A Catholic priest telling a woman that she may someday be ordained is cause for immediate excommunication of the priest.
A Catholic priest telling a woman that he has impregnated that she should obtain an abortion is not excommunicated.
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/ethics/priest.htm
I understand it all now.
Doesn’t this mean that they are regarding the teaching laid down in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as infallibly defined, in a way Humanae Vitae was not (after all, Charlie Curran was hit with a disciplinary violation only, and remains a priest in good standing)?
I have no settled view about the ordination of women.But excommunication for Fr. Bourgeois? I don’t get it. Criticize him, repeatedly if it is deemed important to do so, but excommunication strikes me as arguably unjust.
It seems to me that it’s one thing to argue about women’ s ordination as a hypothetical question, or to maintain that the Church can and should change its teaching on this. (Yes, I know the Vatican said tacete –but still, talking is one thing.)
But this priest did go further–by attending the ordination and preaching at the service, he in effect treated her as if the ordination “took.”
In effect, he is saying not that there should be women priests, but that there are women priests.
If I had to speculate, this would be line that I think he crossed.
I think Cathy’s righ tand that this good priest deliberately crossed a line to provoke some action.
Whether or not the action he provoked is going to sit well in parts of the Catholic community is another matter.
Current experience seems to be that you can’t get an issue up on the table in Rome by just talking.
If you take provocative action to get the issue up- you get the hard line(Like Sr, Leers in St. Louyis.)
The message seems clear -we’re brooking no change and we’ll bite if you challenge us directly.
I guess this means moving to a “purer” Church.
I’m not sure how “positive engagement” works inside the organization.
Cathleen Kaveny is right — it is just unthinkable for a priest to tamper with the sacraments.
I vaguely support the ordination of women, but what I really think is that the whole business of priesthood needs to be reexamined in depth.
Bourgeois’ reply refusing to recant is posted below the NCR report. It is a very powerful rebuttle. He has clearly dug deeply into his conscience.
This paragraph struck me as particularly poignant.
“Conscience is very sacred. Conscience gives us a sense of right and wrong and urges us to do the right thing. Conscience is what compelled Franz Jagerstatter, a humble Austrian farmer, husband and father of four young children, to refuse to join Hitler’s army, which led to his execution. Conscience is what compelled Rosa Parks to say she could no longer sit in the back of the bus. Conscience is what compels women in our Church to say they cannot be silent and deny their call from God to the priesthood. Conscience is what compelled my dear mother and father, now 95, to always strive to do the right things as faithful Catholics raising four children. And after much prayer, reflection and discernment, it is my conscience that compels me to do the right thing. I cannot recant my belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in our Church.”
Somehow, I am reminded of the Divine Right of Kings. It must have been what it was like to live under such a tyranny. I also suspect the King had his loyal subjects who courted the status quo. But we all know in which direction society ultimately moved. I wonder if B16 and his local minions remember their history.
Definitely an excommunicable offense. Not as heresy, though. If this were, there wouldn’t be a warning period before imposing an excommunication. The excommunication would already have incurred latae sententiae, so the CDF would merely declare its presence and not give a 30 day last chance before imposing.
The offense is excommunicable because it is a violation of CIC Canon 1371 no. 1, which criminalizes teaching, apart from doctrines that must be believed with divine and catholic faith, “a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council.” The canon also criminalizes obstinately rejecting a teaching given under Canon 750 § 2, that is, a teaching “set forth definitively by the Magisterium” (aka de fide tenenda).
This analysis assumes that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis either condemns the teaching of women’s ordination or teaches that the Church has no authority to ordain. Either way, it’s safe to assume that the CDF finds with moral certainty that the content of the priest’s homily either teaches the condemned doctrine or rejects the OS-taught doctrine, whichever way you want to slice this.
The penalty for violating Canon 1371 no. 1 is “a just penalty.” When the penalty imposed is indeterminate, the judge “is not to impose greater penalties, especially censures, unless the seriousness of the case demands it.” Canon 1349. Ferendae sententiae excommunication is a censure. Canon 1331. One could argue that this case isn’t serious enough to warrant a censure. Unfortunately, the decision as to whether the case is serious enough is left to the judge’s prudent decision. Canon 1315 § 2.
Paul,
Thanks for the detailed lesson in Canonography (just made that up and I’m serious) but I’m sure the King had all kinds of laws which justified his decision making.
What Rome and most bishops refuse to realize, much like the King, is as Bob Dylan sang, “the World it is a changin..”
1066 was the beginning of the end of that idea for the Kings, maybe by 2066 Rome will get it.
Fr. Ray, as an ex-warrior, knows that charging up the hill is very, very dangerous but he still is willing to charge. He sees it as the only way to dislarge the entrenched. All we can say to him as he goes up the hill, is God speed, God bless. As an officer he knows ‘Come follow me’.
We must remember in hope that most of the ‘entrenched’ have neither his courage or belief in mission. They, for too long, have just written orders and placed burdens on other peoples shoulders.
Mr. Borst, the topic of this thread is the following:
“Is holding his view on women’s ordination an ‘excommunicable’ offense?”
Excommunication is a legal penalty. So in order to answer Mr. Gibson’s quesiton, you have to explore the law. That’s all I’m doing.
And by “quesiton,” I mean question, of course. Oops.
Today’s Marquette Tribune has a Staff editorial: Women do have a role in the Church
The editorial begins:
The subject of female priests in the Catholic Church is a hot-button issue.
We are not church leaders. Nor are we theologians. We will not take a stance on whether the church should ordain women as priests. However, with the rouge ordinations of female priests taking place across the country, we do believe that the church can use this opportunity to discuss and enhance the role of women in the church, outside ordination.
http://media.www.marquettetribune.org/media/storage/paper1130/news/2008/11/11/Viewpoints/Staff.Editorial.Women.Do.Have.A.Role.In.The.Church-3534987.shtml
Paul,
I understood that and I appreciated it. The words “I’m serious” really did refer to my thanks for providing such a knowledgeable response on Canon law. I realize the way I worded it could be interpreted differently. I was just trying to lighten the exchange. I guess it backfired.
John
Ah, I understand now John. You probably did lighten the discussion if it wasn’t for my over-analyzing the situation. My bad.
I’d second the thanks to Paul Madrid for the informative explanantion–and it makes sense, as far as such things go in my brain. I also think Cathleen Kaveny and Bob Nunz make good points–that this went beyond just advocating to action. Still, I think there are some holes here. He didn’t seem to participate sacramentally, or maybe he did, in which case it seems co-officiating or whatev er at an “illicit” ordination would get you the boot–though again, I thought it’d be latae sentiatiae. I also recall reading somewhere that Bourgeois had come to a meeting of the minds with the new superior of the order, and thru him to Rome. But again, I’m fuzzy on the details. We also seem to have just Bourgeois’ letter; perhaps the public recanting part was the sticking point, hence the big gun. Or canon, as it were.
It does seem to raise the level of disagreement to the penalty of excommunication, at least in the simplest reading. And I think Bourgeois’ stand on conscience is very affecting and hard to argue with. Not that this is a question of an argument.
That said, the whole matter of “conscience” here as elsewhere seems to be the great operating principle that everyone invokes but few understand, either on the invoking end or the receiving end. In the current debates over political participation, conscience is invoked on both sides. Those who want to do what they want to do can invoke conscience. Those who want others to do what they want them to do invoke conscience. In the latter context, I often hear the line that conscience is “the freedom to do what you ought to do.” I’m veering off into a different thread, but it’d be interesting to explore what conscience means, in that nobody seems to know, but everyone wants to wield it. Does it have any objective meaning anymore?
This thread is well fleshed out by more than one great mind. All that I can hope to add is this is that real change rarely happens due to civilized conversation from within. I think that Bourgeois knows this and after examining his conscience, refuses to recant.
I will say that to me, excommunication seems extreme. It is however, the other line drawn in the sand.
Joe basically nailed it in the first post.
I think all this priests needs to do is to state that yes he supported the ordination, yes he supported the woman, yes he attended and yes he would go to another. There is nothing for him to be ashamed about.
He committed no sin, he injured no person, he exploited noone for his personal gain.
He may have broken coporate policy and may therefore lose his office. But he cannot be excommunicated from the Church, only the Roman corporation which is only one manifestation.
I think he should be serene and relaxed and accept whatever action they choose.
I really doubt they will choose excommunication in this case.
Denying de fide doctrines is indeed excommunicable, but the non-ordainability of women is a de fide matter only in the fantasy of a handful of Roman bureaucrats. It is in practice a quaestio disputata.
However, it is very excommunicable for a priest to tamper with the sacraments, even for the purposes of making a noble point of principle.
I find the following rhetoric rather bloated, over the top: “Conscience is very sacred. Conscience gives us a sense of right and wrong and urges us to do the right thing. Conscience is what compelled Franz Jagerstatter, a humble Austrian farmer, husband and father of four young children, to refuse to join Hitler’s army, which led to his execution. Conscience is what compelled Rosa Parks to say she could no longer sit in the back of the bus. Conscience is what compels women in our Church to say they cannot be silent and deny their call from God to the priesthood. Conscience is what compelled my dear mother and father, now 95, to always strive to do the right things as faithful Catholics raising four children. And after much prayer, reflection and discernment, it is my conscience that compels me to do the right thing. I cannot recant my belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in our Church.”
Fr. O’Leary and I have disagreed on any number of issues in the past, so I’m glad to be able to give a hearty “amen” to his last comment above (thogh I hope my “amen” doesn’t cause him to recant his statement). I found Bourgeois’s invocation of “conscience” not “poignant” at all. Indeed, the implicit comparison of himself to Jaegerstetter (who was beheaded) and Parks (who was jailed) was pretty mind-boggling.
And if I saw the laws and doctrines of the Church as nothing more than “corporate policy” (they sure are that, but not only that), I would absent myself from said corporation before you could say “here I stand, I can do no other.”
The critiques of Bourgeois’ words and deeds are perfectly legitimate, but they also raise the question as to how those who either support or want to debate the issue of women’s ordination should go about doing so–without risking excommunication, or loss of employment, etc. What are the legitimate parameters of the debate, or the arena?
David,
The 1994 document “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” was written in very strong terms, and was clearly aimed at ending the debate, leaving no room at all. I wouldn’t say it was written in the-strongest-possible-terms but it was very close.
Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
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.(para. 4)
The Pope strongly invoked the Petrine privilege (“confirming the brethren”), teaching as Pope with the authority of Peter, but held back just slightly from saying he was speaking ex cathedra. And then he said that the “judgment” must be held definitively by all the faithful. This is very interesting. It’s not a magisterial “teaching” that must be held, but a judgment.
I would agree with those, however, who say that Fr. Bourgeois went far beyond debate.
Yes, Kathy, all you say is true…And yet it continues to be a topic of debate certainly in the pews and up to the highest echelons of the hierarchy. Roma locuta, but the causa isn’t finita. That seems to leave two options: One, to restrict discussion to defending the pope’s statement, or two, figuring out how to discuss women’s ordination.
There is certainly much foment over the pope’s statement, and an easy analogy could be made to Humanae Vitae, but I think they are of different natures, one being ecclesial authority the other natural law. But I may be mischaracterizing it, and it may not matter in terms of how debate (which equals the possibility of change, of coruse) happens.
David,
I don’t know the history of the expression “Roma locuta…” but in this case the point is not that “Rome” has spoken, but Peter has.
In a discussion of conscience, which I would welcome, by the way, I would hope that some allowance could be made for the possiblility of petrine authority. Some folks dismiss this whole idea as monarchical, Constantinean, etc. etc. But isn’t it biblical? Could it be a gift?
I was waiting for Kathy to weigh in on this one, because I had a feeling that we would be in rare agreement . . . sort of.
It seems clear to me that, given the very clear language in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Fr. Bourgeois went way beyond the bounds of what anybody could expect to get away with by not merely making arguments in favor of the ordination of women but taking part in a forbidden “ordination.” (By the way, doesn’t an ordination require a bishop? And who was that bishop?) And the CDC gave him an order, which he is in open defiance of (if I understand this all correctly).
Now, on the other hand, when the pope commands you to believe something, and you don’t, what in the world are you supposed to do? One is reminded of Alice in Wonderland:
On the matter of conscience, I agree that Fr. Bourgeois’s language was overblown, but nevertheless it is clear that he is taking a stand based on his conscience. I am sure it will be argued that he must not have a “well-formed conscience.” But according to at least some interpretations, it is difficult for me to reconcile the idea of a conscience with the idea of a “well-formed” conscience. (A well-formed conscience, for those not familiar with the concept, is a conscience that tells you to vote against Barack Obama no matter what your plain old conscience tells you and no matter what you think, feel, and believe.)
Just a quick question for clarification purposes to Father O’Leary and Mr. Gibson. I take it that when you said, Father, that “the non-ordainability of women is a de fide matter only in the fantasy of a handful of Roman bureaucrats. It is in practice a quaestio disputata,” you were referring to the conclusion that Mr. Gibson gave, that “it continues to be a topic of debate certainly in the pews and up to the highest echelons of the hierarchy. Roma locuta, but the causa isn’t finita.” Am I following properly?
“But isn’t it biblical? Could it be a gift?”
The Petrine authority is not biblical. We don’t see the emphasis on Matt: 18 until after Pope Damasus (366) has his troops massacre over a hundred of his papal rival’s band. Infallibility is seen nowhere until the 12th century.
Joe gets it right when he said the whole idea of priesthood should be examined.
Pertinent to this discussion the question of the eradication of women from the church must be addressed. All seem to agree that the woman at the well was an Apostle but will not face the conclusion. Magdalene was the first at the Resurrection and Paul seems to have no church if you take away the women.
Canon Law is in too many ways a corruption of scripture and its history is plagued with forgeries and falsehoods. So while we can ask any question it is important to ask the right ones. The first one is how was it possible to destroy all those deeds of women in the first centuries? Schussler Fiorenza 101 should be mandatory.
But if we are not serious then we can turn to the Catholic Encyclopedia for laughs at its portrayal of Damasus. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04613a.htm
To: Joseph O’Leary, F.C. Bauerschmidt and David Nichol:
Fr. O’Leary, you said “I find [Bourgeois’s] rhetoric rather bloated, over the top.” Could you point, specifically, to the bloat, to what’s over the top? I don’t see it. Am I missing something?
Dr. Bauerschmidt, you said “[Bourgeois’s] implicit comparison of himself to Jaegerstetter (who was beheaded) and Parks (who was jailed) was pretty mind-boggling.”
If he had done that, it would indeed have been mind-boggling, but I don’t see him making any such comparison. In the passage you’ve quoted, he begins with two sentences about conscience, then gives four examples. Period. He doesn’t compare himself to any of the four, and you could just as easily say that he was comparing himself to the example he gave (i.e. his parents) just before he stated his own position. Again, am I missing something?
David Nichol, you said “I agree that Fr. Bourgeois’s language was overblown.” Where, specifically, was it overblown? Are you saying he shouldn’t have used the examples? Or that he used them, phrased them, in a way that was unacceptable? If so, what was unacceptable? Please do respond.
I will say that I think it would have been better – would have showed more intellectual humility — if he’d said, at the very end, “it is my conscience that compels me to do what I see as the right thing.”
For your convenience, here’s the passage again:
For what it’s worth (I am rather an amateur in the matters), I offer a thought or two on Peter in scripture. The binding and loosing text in Matthew 18 has already shown up in Matthew 16:19 as part of the confession at Ceasarea Philippi. Matthew’s version is both more elaborate and much more positive regarding Peter than the versions found in either Mark (8:27-33) or Luke (9:18-22). In what most take to be the earliest version, namely, Mark, there is no binding or loosing language, nor is such language found in Luke. Additionally, Peter immediately moves from a position of confessing Jesus to be the Christ to an ignorant/demonic posture where Jesus declares “Get behind me, Satan!” (this whole episode is missing in Luke).
What to make of this? Matthew’s addition seems to be an addition designed to serve theological and ecclesiological ends. Some scholars that I have read suggest that Mark does not need to emphasize the importance of the Apostles because he is still operating under apocalyptic expectation (in fact, the Apostles are just about as blind as everyone else in Mark) where the question of leadership in the church will be rendered moot by the apocalypse/second coming. Matthew, on the other hand, places less emphasis on apocalyptic expectation and more emphasis on a long term church. The long term church would then need clearly identified leaders, and Matthew”s addition to Mark’s account would serve this purpose well.
Am I saying that Matthew’s version is wrong? No, since the issue is theology rather than history. I do think it very unlikely that Matthew’s version is historical. One safe conclusion would be that Matthew’s efforts to establish a pedigree of leadership in the early churches would play a central role in the defense of any church authority structure at any time in the history of Christianity.
Joe,
There is special material in Luke 22, however, and this is the biblical background of the formula used in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:
“It is you who have stood by me in my trials;
29 and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me,
30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32 but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”
These sayings in Luke are placed in the context of the Last Supper.
I have heard the Markan version (from a narrative standpoint) helps the audience identify with the closest disciples, who really didn’t “get” Jesus right away and have to wrestle with the gospel message, which defied their expectations of the messiah. This certainly seems more plausible than instant understanding. How ironic that when Peter rebukes the son of God, Jesus tells him to get behind him (i.e. not excommunicated).
Gene Palumbo,
Perhaps my reading of Fr. Bourgeois was insufficiently charitable. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve failed in charity.
If I am able, will try to link a number of parallel thoughts and activities that are currently being addressed:
a) heard from a classmate last week about a conference at DePaul University about Liberation Theology – Gustavo Guiterriez was one of the main speakers as was Cardinal George. My classmate described Fr. Guiterriez has looking extremely tired, beat down, and old – and here a man who has dedicated his life to the preferential option for the poor and putting into action the works of Medellin and Puebla. Yet, he has had to endure excessive investigations and criticism for years from the CDF. In fact, George’s comments contained another dig about Gustavo and his theology -”which has not always been orthodox!”;
b) not sure of the whole history of Roy’s case but know that he met with his provincial and consultors and have responded via them. Why this threat and not a meeting or dialogue? Why pick such a high profile fight?
c) it seems strange to me but the knee jerk reaction leads with juridical penalties – what happened to leading with mercy and justice first? Why air this out in such a public fashion?
d) this reminds me of other past conflicts – ministry to gays and the attacks on DIGNITY; seems to contradict the approach with the Tridentine folks esp. the Brazilian diocese in terms of excommunication;
e) understand the legal and sacramental objections but if you are a female invested in church ministry, wonder how this event feels? You may disagree with Roy’s “conscience” historical stories but the facts around a lack of scriptural basis to dogmatically state that women can not be ordained is really lacking; given that, why draw such a black and white line?
f) there seems to be much larger issues facing the church and the world currently – this feels like an internal parent-child conflict and not an adult to adult dialogue. It feels again like the Vatican is busy re-arranging the chairs on the Titanic rather than addressing its energies on war, nuclear proliferation, Third World poverty and disease, the growing ecological/climate threats, etc.
IMHO
Just a quick thought. Obviously, Fr. Bourgeois’ situation resonates in ways far beyond his individual situation, and most of the discussion here has been about those larger implications. I just want to point out that there is also a personal dimension in all this – that a servant of the church seems intent on leaving the church. That’s tragic. George D., I hope you’re right that excommunication won’t be the result in this case, but I fear it will. The Congregation doesn’t play games of “chicken”; when excommunication is threatened, it is because the Congregation is fully prepared to carry it out. And Bourgeois’ letter shows not a grain of desire to reconcile.
There are many people who, though they lack the high profile of Fr. Bourgeois and his flair for public gestures, and who would never come to the attention of a Roman dicastery, nevertheless find themselves in his situation: they can’t in conscience assent to what the church asks of them. There is at least one contributor to this forum in that situation. Who will be the shepherd who goes to find such people? Can we find a way to bring them back?
Well said, Jim. Agree and add some of Prof. Kaveny’s thoughts on abortion – have we missed the point in the past 30 years by focusing exclusively on the law (in the old West tradition – individual rights). What happens when we step back and see law as a teaching tool that unites, directs to the common good, and persuades/compels that people achieve the common good. This changes the current debate from overturning Roe v Wade to how best to teach/educate/persuade the hearts and minds.
Can not these same thoughts be applied to the issue of women’s ordination? Why make an example of one priest?
A while back, Joe J., in another thread, noted there are two Churches.
Clearly the hieracchical Church can point to its juridic rules and regs, buttressed by documents, putatively supported by selected Scripture cites.
The other is grounded in the pastoral and experienced Church ,and uses another set of scriptural perspectives.
We’ve(as I’ve said before) had a lot of talk here about feeling “homeless.”
The second Church is being driven toward that feeling tone as well. Bill D’s and Jim’s final comment are right on target.
Gene:
“I will say that I think it would have been better – would have showed more intellectual humility — if he’d said, at the very end, “it is my conscience that compels me to do what I see as the right thing.”
I agree.
Then the CDF can respond that it is their conscience that compels them to safeguard the sacramental understanding of the priesthood.
Then, he can say that we at least understand each other, even if not agreeing.
There need not be acrimony.
Jim Pauwels:
With all due respect, it seems to me that you’re misrepresenting Bourgeois’s position, and so are being unfair to him.
What is your basis for saying that he is “intent on leaving the church?” He says, right at the beginning of his letter, “when I was a young man in the military, I felt God was calling me to the priesthood. I entered Maryknoll and was ordained in 1972…. I have been a Catholic priest for 36 years and have a deep love for my Church and ministry.” Does that sound like a person who’s “intent on leaving the church?” It’s clear that he has no plans or desire to leave, and that if he ends up outside, it will be because the church has expelled him.
You also say his letter “shows not a grain of desire to reconcile.” Is that the most accurate way to put it? Is it that he’s unwilling to reconcile, or that he feels he’s unable to? “I cannot recant my belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in our Church,” he says. “With all due respect, I believe our Catholic Church’s teaching on this issue is wrong and does not stand up to scrutiny.” As he explains in the letter, what he’s doing is following the dictates of his conscience. Given all of that, I feel that your characterization of him (“not a grain of desire to reconcile”) is, at the least, ungenerous.
Hi, Gene,
“What is your basis for saying that he is “intent on leaving the church?” ”
Seventeen paragraphs of defiance emailed to NCR for publication. Persons who wish to clear matters up and remain where they are take a different approach.
“I feel that your characterization of him (“not a grain of desire to reconcile”) is, at the least, ungenerous.”
No judgment was intended on my part. Whatever else it conveys, the letter is a remarkable instance of bridge-burning.
Does the letter – or any of the circumstances – give you any reason to suspect that either party wants to patch things up?
Is this a new form of gender distinction: ” rouge ordinations “? I know more than a few priests and bishops who would jump on THAT bandwagon!
I hope that he accepts the excommunication (that, and $2.50 will get you a latte @ Starbux) rather than bow under to a teaching that he does not support.
I know of no general Vatican document that forbids the discussion of the ordination of women. “Ordinatio sacerdotalis” does not forbid it. Trying to forbid it conjures up visions of King Canute. The present no. 2 or no. 3 man in the CDF took part in a very public discussion of the issue at Georgetown some years ago, and this did not prevent his being appointed to his present post.
I suspect the issue is formal participation in the alleged ordination. Simulation of a sacrament has always been regarded as a very serious sin.
I think there is need to develop a better theology of the priesthood, but this would also require a better theology of a vocation than that in Fr. Bourgeois’ letter, which seems to equate it with some direct tap on the shoulder or some warming of the heart by God.
Btw, in the interest of precision, I should say that excommunication “leaving the church”. (I think).
Sorry, my math symbols didn’t post in that last one – I’m trying to say that getting excommunicated as not quite the same as “leaving the church” or “getting kicked out of the church”.
Jim, the difficulty with your characterization is that it basically means that anyone who raises the issue in a manner designed to get attention is assumed to be “burning bridges” or not interested in reconciliation.
As a woman, I know this syndrome: if you are nice no one listens; if you shout people flame you for being rude and uncooperative. Either way, they are not interested in listening.
How should he have gone about doing this?
Fr. Komonchak,
How do you read this expression: “This judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” ?
If, as David proposes, debate would include a positive presentation of an argument for women’s ordination, credibly considered, how could such an argument be made by anyone who definitively holds the opposite to be true?
“Jim, the difficulty with your characterization is that it basically means that anyone who raises the issue in a manner designed to get attention is assumed to be “burning bridges” or not interested in reconciliation.
As a woman, I know this syndrome: if you are nice no one listens; if you shout people flame you for being rude and uncooperative. Either way, they are not interested in listening.”
So you think he is “martyring” himself for the cause? Doing the rhetorical equivalent of setting himself on fire, or throwing himself under the wheels of the carriage? That’s how I read it, too.
If he’s hoping for a resolution that falls short of martyrdom, then – as a rhetorical strategy for a person who wants to stay in the church’s good graces, it sucks.
A key point about martyrdom is, one has to die. If excommunication is what he wants, he’s going about it admirably. If he wants to stimulate productive dialogue, he’s going about it all wrong.
He is walking a path that others have trodden before him – publicly defying the CDF on a “non-negotiable”, playing to the gallery while pulling the nose of the magistrate. We’ve seen this show before. We know how it ends.
“How should he have gone about doing this?”
Not for me to say. He seems to be going about it exactly as he pleases, and I believe the outcome will be what he apparently desires.
Kathy: Re 1: I read the statement as saying what it says.
Re 2: If someone holds the position as true, he would not offer an argument that contradicts it.
Fr. Komonchak,
Sounds right. That’s why I’m wondering how such a debate is even conceivable among Catholics. It could be one-sided, which isn’t a debate, or it could be, on one side, openly dissenting from the judgment required of all the faithful by OS.
Perhaps I’m missing the possibility of another scenario.
Kathy, obviously Fr. Komonchak can respond for himself, but I think debates can also be a way of figuring out what one believes or reiterating what one ought to believe. Discussion is about learning as well, and doesn’t necessarily mean a classic debate where two sides come into a discussion defending foreordained notions. What if a Catholic does not believe the papal arguments against women’s ordination? You can’t simply believe something because you are told to. You have to learn whether it is worthy of assent. That also presumes that those who support the teaching would engage in dialogues about it, as we are doing here.
What I say here is in no way in defense of Fr. Bourgeois’s actions.
There are literally millions of people in the Church today who have difficulty with one or another of the Church’s teachings, including the one in case here, the ordination of women. I do not think the crisis that this represents for the unity of the Church can be resolved by administrative measures. It will only be resolved by better teaching. Three quotations that might usefully be kept in mind, the first two from Newman, the third from Augustine, referred to by Newman in his Apologia.
(1) “Denunciation neither effects subjection in thought nor in conduct…. You cannot make men believe by force and repression. Were the Holy See as powerful in temporals, as it was three centuries back, then you would have a secret infidelity instead of an avowed one–(which seems the worse evil) unless you train the reason to defend the truth. Galileo subscribed what was asked of him, but is said to have murmured, ‘E pur muove.’”
(2)” Every consideration, the fullest time should be given to those who have to make up their minds to hold an article of faith which is new to them. To take up at once such an article may be the act of a vigorous faith; but it may also be the act of a man who will believe anything because he believes nothing, and is ready to profess whatever his ecclesiastical, that is, his political party requires of him. There are too many high ecclesiastics in Italy and England, who think that to believe is as easy as to obey–that is, they talk as if they did not know what an act of faith is.”
(3) “Let them be fierce with you who do not know how hard it is to find the truth and how difficult to avoid errors. Let them be fierce with you who do not know how rare and hard it is to overcome the imaginings of the flesh by the clarity of a pious mind. Let them be fierce with you who do not know how difficult it is for the eye of the inner man to be healed so that it can gaze upon its sun–not that sun which you worship, which shines with the brilliance of a heavenly body on the fleshly eyes of men and beasts, but that sun of which it is written by the prophet: “The Sun of righteousness has arisen upon me” (Mal 4:2), and of which it is said in the Gospel: “That was the true light, that enlightens every man who comes into the world” (Jn 1:9). Let them be fierce with you who do not know with what sighs and groans the slightest understanding of God is reached. And, finally, let them be fierce with you who have never been deceived by the same error they see has deceived you.
“As for me, it was only after long and difficult discussions that I was able to discover what that simple truth is which can be perceived without being narrated in a silly legend. Wretch that I was, I barely succeeded, with God’s help, in overcoming the vain imaginings of my mind, gathered from theories and errors of various kinds. It was quite late before I, to remove my mind’s darkness, submitted to the call and persuasion of the all-merciful Physician…. I cannot, then, be fierce against you, but must now bear with you as once I had to bear with myself and show as much patience towards you as my friends showed to me when I was madly and blindly wandering off in your beliefs.” (Augustine, to Manichees)
As one who has left the institutional part of the church, I still regard myself as a Christian and, just as important, as a Catholic by faith, just not by affiliation. When I finally informed my pastor in writing in late 2006, it was easy. Why? Because the need to leave a dying and suffocating institution finally came to the fore. I HAD to get out!
I agree with those who cite Bourgeois’ participation in an illicit ordination (viewed invalid, as well, by Rome) for the communication from Rome. I, of course, support Bourgeois.
Change can be messy, but it will most certainly come — in some fashion. When JPII said that he had uttered the last word on the issue of women’s ordination, he effectively tried to end discussion/debate. We know, of course, that he merely stirred the pot of controversy and turmoil.
When the new Benedict XVI came out on the balcony after his election, I instinctively knew in my gut that things would get ugly. And they have. But maybe this pope will, in fact, end up with a smaller put “purer” church. To which I can only respond: “So what?!?”
My last thoughts here:
-While Fr. B was clearly being provocative, to cut him off after 36 years of service is only gently discrebied as heavy handed and whether he thinks he’s a martyr, will make him a martyr to a number of folks.
-Silencing clergy or religious (e.g.Sr. Leers by Burke or CDF shutdowns of theologians) in instances where experience or reaserach doesn’t fit with the current Church positions doesn’t work anymore – folks’ sense of history and change make the argument of immutability untenable except in the really basic matters of faith. it also undermines the kind of argument here that obedience demanded of the faithful must cede to all else -a form of contemporary infantilaization.
Fr. Komonchak,
Thank you for the quotations, which are very much on point and beautiful besides.
I would like to temporarily take a step back from the question of whether an individual’s intellectual conversion could be mandated or forced, and ask whether error may legitimately be taught. There must be a way to teach in which difficulties can arise without automatic scorn for either the individual mind nor the unified teaching. But I have rarely seen a truly free exchange. Either authority is mocked on spec, or questions are dismissed.
On the one hand I think of the tragic-hilarious story The Conversion of the Jews by Philip Roth, in which a rabbi and a kid take turns trying to force one another’s convictions. On the other hand I think back to the teaching that precipitated my teenage agnosticism, which devolved rapidly into atheism and despair. My high school World Religions teacher said that since no one knows who God is, all religions are groping, none of them is true. This was a Catholic school and I was 15, with all the vulnerability that might be expected. I believed her and lost my faith in an intellectual moment.
Let’s say a public forum at a Catholic college presents views pro and con on the issue of women’s ordination. All speaking parties are academically credentialed, all teach at Catholic institutions, there are clergy and religious on both sides. How would such an event serve to unite the Church? It would be aimed at presenting division as a fair option.
“It will only be resolved by better teaching.”
Please.
Haven’t we had enough of the canard of the poor dumb laity (or in this case, a poor dumb priest)? This is not a matter of intellectual assent. Fr Roy has defined it as an issue of conscience. He may or may not be right, but the notion that a stern lecture will set him straight is the height of hubris.
Silly me, I thought “conscience” meant “with knowledge”. Apparently conscience is that little magical voice in one’s head telling people what is right and what is wrong.
Fr. Bourgeois, since your conscience is so strongly made up, please share your knowledge with us plebians. I assume I will be able to read a 75 page article detailing your historical, theological, philosophical, psychological, sociological and exegetical arguments for the ordination of the fairer sex.
Kathy wrote:
How would such an event serve to unite the Church? It would be aimed at presenting division as a fair option.
Kathy, is the purpose of a Catholic university to “unite the Church”? Is presenting two sides in a debate the same as saying ‘division is a fair option”?
In a Homily by Bishop Leo O’Reilly for the Mass of Commemoration to mark the 150th anniversary of the completion of Newman’s seven year service to Irish university education at University Church, St Stephen’s Green, Dublin the bishop said:
“Another of Cardinal Newman’s great themes – one which also found expression in the Discourses – was that cultivation of mind is the primary purpose of a university. The aim is to enable students to learn how to think rather than what to think. And almost any subject, literature, science, ethics or theology, can provide the content for such learning. The important thing for him was developing the ability to reason. I think he would be pleased to find that his wisdom in this regard, as well as in relation to the partnership between faith and reason, has not been forgotten.”
What you have described is the “power to think” and to dwell on the relationship to the partnership between faith and reason”. It can’t be done in a vacuum. And it can’t be done by “force and repression” as Joe quoted above.
Nor can it be done through the use of words dripping with sarcasm as Adam tried above.
Paul Madrid, yes, when I said that “the non-ordainability of women is a de fide matter only in the fantasy of a handful of Roman bureaucrats. It is in practice a quaestio disputata,” I was indeed saying what Mr Gibson said more pithily: “it continues to be a topic of debate certainly in the pews and up to the highest echelons of the hierarchy. Roma locuta, but the causa isn’t finita.”
It seems to me that the debate is framed too much in terms of an unreconstructed theology of ministry, one that today is bound to limit women’s participation in ministry. In the pre-Tridentine past, when there was less obsession with clerical/lay boundaries, women had a more pervasive and vibrant place in the Church’s ministry.
What we need now is new thinking about ministry, taking into account not nly the open-endedness and pluralism of the New Testament but also the changing nature of community and churchhood in our times.
Yes, Newman has been hijacked by the Catholic right for too long. Read in the context of his times he is actually a quite open, critical and liberal thinker. The much quoted biglietto speech of 1878 attacking liberalism refers to the dissolution of dogma and theological realism but has been used to invoke Newman’s blessing on a whole array of conservative Catholic causes. I think it probably that Newman would have viewed Humanae Vitae with the same disfavor as he viewed Vatican I, and as Cardinals Koenig and Martiini have viewed it. Rather disgustingly, Cardinal Schoenborn now lambastes his predecessor for not having the courage to resist the flow of the times by failing to support Humanae Vitae!
Kathy is right that the Petrine office is biblical. But the ultramontane exploitation of this in the massive over-centralization of the Church today is not a good fulfillment of the Petrine role of strengthening the brethren in faith.
What else could he have done?
He could have sided with the people whom he felt were victimized by taking his place among them, that is, but declaring that since they were not allowed to celebrate Mass, he himself couldn’t in conscience do it any more, and that since they couldn’t preach, he himself couldn’t in conscience do it any more. It think that it could have reconciled his conscience with his actions and would have been a respectful response to the deafness of the church’s authorities.
It would not have made it into the media, and it probably would have had no effect, but that’s irrelevant.
Perhaps seeing his willingness to quietly sacrifice himself, for the sake of a cause he deeply cares about, might have moved his bishop or a few people in the church hierarchy.
He may or may not be right, but the notion that a stern lecture will set him straight is the height of hubris.
Todd,
Fr. Komonchak can, of course, speak for himself, but I hardly think he was equating “better teaching” with “sterner lectures.” There are a multitude of ways to teach better apart from sterner lecturing (e.g. offering better reasons in support of the point you want to teach). Indeed, as any teacher knows, if the only tool in your box for improving teaching is sterner lecturing, your teaching will be a spectacular failure.
“Primacy of conscience” is the code of every sociopath. And of every narcissist, for whom even bad publicity is good publicity.
Mike, I take it you are referring to Fr. Bourgeois and not Pope Benedict? I don’t know Fr. Bourgoeis, and as a Maryknoller you may have better insights on him. But I know something about the pope, and while he (and church teaching) holds the same view on conscience, I don’t think he’s a sociopath. Certainly self-regard and the pursuit of justice are too often intermingled, to the point that it becomes impossible to differentiate the two at times. That is unfortunate for both the person and the principle at stake. But the charcacter of the proponent doesn’t necessarily define the rightness–or wrongness–of a principle.
David,
If you thing Fr Bourgeois and the Pope have the same take on this, then you know neither of them.
Mike, I think the primacy of conscience is sacrosanct, and of course it can be abused. I think Benedict would agree with that; in fact, he has said so quite forcefully. I don’t think he used the term ‘sociopath” in doing so, however.
“I will not leave you orphans.”-Christ
Why would Christ found a Church that was fallible? If it is true that Christ Has founded His Church, then His Church would be infallible.
This is not to say that the Church’s members are not fallible but rather that the Teaching of His Church, from the beginning, is infallible.
Commonweal had a great issue of Women’s ordination and infallibility in an issue 12 years ago. Quite good.
http://216.239.116.135/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n2_v123/ai_17958347/pg_1
It also had a more recent article talking about the tensions inherent in advocating a society that promotes gender equality while maintaining a Church structure that precludes it. Also quite good.
For those unfamiliar with Peter Stenifels’ A People Adrift, or for those who have forgotten, he has about 12 pages (far less than 75 and beginning on page 273) discussing the women’s ordination issue. One quote, “There are three possible outcomes: Women will be ordained, or the church will render its teaching convincing, or Catholic commitment to equality and justice for half the human race will be in doubt.”
In these pages, among many other things, Peter analyzes the arguments (and there are several) that have been used or are now being used to exclude women from the priesthood and indicates why a significant number of people remain unconvinced, even by the current favorite based on the imagery of the Church as the bride of Christ and the complementarity of the sexes. Another quote, “Even the best-made arguments will not get a hearing if they appear self-serving, overly subtle, and blind to the patriarchal biases riddling Christian tradition.
He notes that following the issuance of Inter Insignores in 1976 (barring the ordination of women) one theologian noted that “Roma locuta, causa finita” had become “Roma locuta, causa stimulata!”
There is nothing like an implausible argument to encourage dissent from a proposed teaching. Nor does vigor of asseveration help. Ordinatio sacerdotalis is a case in point.
Here is a comment by Sidney Callahan over at America Blog:
Shortcut to: http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/blog.cfm?blog_id=2
Karl Rahner had a good response to the CDF’s Inter Insigniores in Chapter three, “Women and the Priesthood,” of Volume XX of “Theological Investigations.” Here’s the way the chapter ends:
“The Roman declaration says that in this question the Church must remain faithful to Jesus Christ. This is of course true in principle. But what fidelity means in connection with this problem remains an open question. Consequently the discussion must continue. Cautiously, with mutual respect, critical of bad arguments on both sides, critical of irrelevant emotionalism expressly or tacitly influencing both sides, but also with that courage for historical change which is part of the fidelity which the Church owes to its Lord.”
I think he would favor both “better teaching,” and the development of a deeper, more adequate theology of the priestly ministry.
“remains an open question” — nice to see Rahner thought so too.
“Why would Christ found a Church that was fallible? If it is true that Christ Has founded His Church, then His Church would be infallible.”
He said the Spirit would lead us into all truth — but this implies that we will live among lost of uncertainties on the way to that goal.
“This is not to say that the Church’s members are not fallible but rather that the Teaching of His Church, from the beginning, is infallible.”
Vatican II talks of the infallibility of the people of God.
The inerrancy of the People of God according to Vatican II is not like a democratic election, in which a bare majority can change the course of a state or the meaning of a long-held institution. It has to be unanimous. It’s not sociological but mystical.
The holy people of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name.(Cf. Heb. 13, 15) The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(Cf. Jn. 2, 20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” (Cfr. S. Augustinus, D Praed. Sanct. 14, 27: PL 44, 980.) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of (people) but truly the word of God.(Cf. 1 Thess. 2, 13) Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints,(Cf. Jud. 3) penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life.
It’s really not enough, in the Church, to engineer a sea change in thinking. You have to put unity first.
Today’s NYT says Fr. Ray has gone home to be with his 95 year old father who supports him.
Terribly sad.
I wonder if the commentator er efrom Maryknoll is speaking for most of his fellows or himself.
Putting unity first in a divided Church(and I think we’d all agree it is divided and to some degree polarized) surely requires more than assent to the hierarchy. For that itself is one of the major division points that we continue to thrash out here.
Kathy, how and when do we know that all the bishops and all the laity “show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals?”
Does this unanimity occur all at once, or is it process, perhaps one that occurs over a long span of time — maybe over decades or even centuries?
Is the Holy Spirit not at work during dissent?
To add to your thoughts – Vatican I is a good example of evolving and changing unanimity. Historically, as Pius pushed for and got his infallibility doctrine approved; some 30-40% of the bishops present at Vatican I left before the vote, before the papal pronouncement because they did NOT agree with this infallibility doctrine.
In fact, one of the Popes in the 13th century (later named a saint) declared any type of church or papal infallibility to be a grave sin.
History shows that the church, its doctrines, its pronouncements evolve, change, grow – a process that does not always move forward or progress. One of my favorite quotes from a Jesuit scholar – “The church finally gets there late; and out of breath!”
There are several different ways to know the truth regarding faith and morals. One is a Council’s definition of truth; this does not have to be unanimous. Another is a Pope’s decree ex cathedra. Another is the overwhelming judgment of the People of God.
It seems to me that believing in the express teaching of the Church implies a prior belief in 2 things:
1. Belief in the special revelation
2. Belief in the ongoing guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church
These are necessary but not sufficient preambles to assent to current teaching. Some other things that are necessary include a desire to be in communion of mind and heart, a mind open to study and reception, and an ability (necessary in a republic, necessary since the First Letter to the Corinthians) to de-politicize religion.
Kathy, I’m glad you brought up the three modes of infallible teaching. It got me to thinking of an oddity of sorts, namely, that the third mode (ordinary universal magisterium) requires ALL the bishops in communion with Rome to agree on a matter to make a teaching infallible — but the second mode (ecumenical/general council) apparently, as you’ve noted, does not require unanimity but only a majority (?) of bishops present at a vote; we know that not all bishops would necessarily attend a particular session where a vote might occur. As I say, this arrangement seems odd in its seeming lack of consistency. (I must admit I’d never picked up on this apparent quirk in procedure.)
I agree we should listen to the bishops. However, the rub might be that even if one has an open mind as you’ve noted, one might conclude reasonably and in good faith that reception is not warranted.
Regarding politics in religion, whenever Rome (or the local chancery) promulgates teaching/policy on matters affecting the lives of the laity (and, yes, even of priests and religious), the experience automatically opens up the possibility of politics intruding. People want a “say” in such matters, and, of course, they cannot/will not ignore their and others’ experience as it relates to a new mandate/etc. from the bishop or pope.