The Vatican’s decision to excommunicate the Rev. Roy Bourgeois from the Roman Catholic Church and to dismiss him from Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers is senseless and heavy-handed.
Bourgeois wasn’t defrocked because he committed some immoral or illegal act; he was pushed out because of his outspoken support for the ordination of women priests.
His crime was questioning the Vatican’s authority. Worse, he challenged the church’s interpretation of Jesus’s teachings. Many Catholics support the Vatican’s position, which doesn’t permit women to become priests. They take an orthodox view and they don’t want to see the church change.
But the society that the Catholic Church served a 1,000 or even 500 years ago isn’t the same society we live in today. And the spiritual needs of all Catholics aren’t the same, either.
Bourgeois recognizes this, as do many other Catholics. Allowing women to become priests would not destroy or diminish the Catholic Church in any way. But honoring hypocrisy will.
Bourgeois was in Rochester yesterday for the showing of “Pink Smoke Over the Vatican” at the Cinema Theater. I had the opportunity to speak with him this morning, before he returned to Atlanta. He was obviously shaken by the announcement from Maryknoll and still grieving.
But what struck me most about the brief conversation is his compassion and his capacity for forgiveness. The Vatican hasn’t silenced Bourgeois, and it hasn’t ended the controversy over the ordination of women.
At best, it’s made an old priest’s life harder.
For many Catholics, however, the Vatican’s decision validated Bourgeois’s concern: the church’s treatment of women is shameful.
This article appears in Nov 28 – Dec 4, 2012.
Tim,
While I don’t agree with much, if anything you write in this article, I do agree with you on one thing you stated, and I quote “But the society that the Catholic Church served a 1,000 or even 500 years ago isn’t the same society we live in today. And the spiritual needs of all Catholics aren’t the same, either.” You are absolutely right. Today’s society is in need of serious help and while the issues might be different; so called ‘same-sex marriage’, human trafficking, drug abuse, etc, the moral truths established by our Creator do not change. You see, the thing is that while society is a mess today and has it’s many ill’s, the Truth does not change. The Catholic church does not change to conform with the latest societal experiments nor should it. Natural Law does not need to change, nor can it. The Catholic Church is even more relevant today than ever. If you are going to write a news blog, please consider balancing it a bit else it is just another rant against the Catholic Church.
“The Catholic Church is even more relevant today than ever. “
MacAttack – Ignoring the fact that “truth” DOES change over time (for example less than 150 years ago it was “true” that blacks were inferior to whites and that owning them was biblically sanctioned) particularly over two millennium, I would be interested in you providing a few examples of how you see today’s Catholic Church as still being relevant.
Dear MacAttack:
Thanks for your comment. But I wouldn’t compare same-sex marriage to human trafficing. And I don’t think it is one of society’s ills.
Tim Macaluso
“the spiritual needs of all Catholics aren’t the same” — Malarkey. Our need for salvation is no different from that of our forbears, or of those who will follow after us as long as earthly life endures. Anyone who wraps himself around the axle over irrelevant externalities like female ordination has plainly lost sight of what matters.
Mr. Bourgeois was afforded every opportunity to reconcile with his community and the Church. Instead he freely chose to excommunicate himself and renounce his vows. It is obvious to any objective observer that he did so purely out of hubris and a misguided faith in his own p.c. ideology.
The Catholic Church is not a democracy. You either agree to and abide by the rules or you go – you can’t pick and choose. And it’s not up to non-Catholics to pass judgement on the Church’s rules either. Why spend your time picking on religions that don’t meet your “standards”? Go and find one that you agree with (if any) and mind your own business.
Tim,
It sounds like you are heading down the path of moral relativism; ‘just because you find it morally wrong, does not mean I find it morally wrong’. Moral relativism is one of the primary reasons why our society has so many problems (I could list out the problems but the list probably would take quite some space. Just picking up a newspaper or reading online news will reveal the plethora of societal problems. The teachings of the Catholic church address many of the problems that we see in today’s society; teachings on the sanctity of life (the intrinsic evil of abortion), chastity, love for your neighbor, fidelity to one’s spouse, stewardship of God’s creation, etc. I understand that being a Catholic holds me to a much higher moral standard than say a moral relativist. Example, whereas I choose to maintain a faithful marriage with my spouse, the moral relativist might feel that even though he or she is married, it seems ok to have extramarital affairs. Whereas I will fight for the sanctity of all life, from conception to natural death, the moral relativist might believe that killing a baby in the womb or to euthanize an adult is acceptable. We obviously disagree on some of the issues raised in your article and in the comments, but to believe that the Church must change to adapt to today’s society to become or remain relevant is a wild assertion.
Mac, the church is an entirely human construct. You’ve already admitted that people were different 500 years ago. Yet somehow the church can’t ever change?
There is nothing of value in any religion in 2012; you don’t even make logical sense defending it.
Millimeter, when you are ready to debate some facts, please let me know. I’d be more than happy to have a serious conversation with you.
Tim, would you care to understand the actual position on why women can’t become priests from a knowledgeable catholic? If you would like to critically think about the issue rather than just listening to one viewpoint and buying into it please listen to the following lecture:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm
I would be curious to hear your response after you understand the theology behind it.
MacAttack – I am continually amazed by the sameness in the arguments of those who support the status quo of the Catholic Church at any given point in the last 2,000 years and how they always fall back on the claims that the pope or the curia then in control are the ONLY ones who know what’s right, and moral and “Catholic” , that the position of the Church on any number of issues is unalterable and unchanging, and that to question or oppose their views is heretical, misguided or just plan wrong.
You claim that, “to believe that the Church must change to adapt to today’s society to become or remain relevant is a wild assertion”. Do you REALLY think that the moral stance of the Church has not (you’ll excuse the expression) evolved over the centuries? That literally every theological precept has not been revised? That Councils have not been repeatedly called so that issues could be debated and thrashed out and the Church put on new paths?
I’ve not heard of a pope calling for a crusade against Islam lately. Nor have I recently seen the Inquisition authorizing the burning of heretics by the secular powers. Neither do we any longer have popes making their sons Princes of the Church or otherwise finding them jobs in the “family business”. Times and morality change. Repeatedly and continually. And until now so has the Church when those in power finally realized that there were far greater sins than remaining “relevant”.
I have no doubt that, despite the fact that many will keep ignoring the Church’s history and will argue that no change is possible, the Church WILL nevertheless change and will leave behind those Catholics who cannot.
Mac:
You claim that you believe being a Catholic holds you to a much higher moral standard than say a moral relativist.
I wonder whether it was this higher moral standard or moral relativism that was at work when the Vatican signed the Lateran Pact of 1929 with Mussolini’s fascist government, or the Concordat with Nazi Germany in 1933 ?
St. Mary – I recall that at least three Popes (Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII) declared that heliocentrism was opposed to Sacred Scripture, and condemned the notion of heliocentrism as being in opposition to the Scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition and teachings of the Church as all these supported a geocentric cosmology.
So as a “knowledgeable catholic” do you believe that the sun revolves around the earth?
The question isn’t whether change is possible. But heedless rejection of tradition is no different, no better, than mindless adherence.
The question then is whether a faithful and reasonable Catholic, enlightened by Revelation and Tradition, would find a proposed change to be sound, worthy, necessary, essential, universal, and true. In this case, the answer is quite decisively no.
“The question then is whether a faithful and reasonable Catholic, enlightened by Revelation and Tradition, would find a proposed change to be sound, worthy, necessary, essential, universal, and true.”
j.a.m. – so by your definition anyone who disagrees with your opinion cannot be “a faithful and reasonable Catholic”? I believe that the appropriate question at this juncture is, who died and left you god?
@Chaim: Yes, I hold opinions that I believe are correct. I’m unsure why anyone would hold opinions that he believes are incorrect (but, come to think of it, that might explain a lot about contemporary leftism).
In any case, you are completely free to reach the opposite conclusion from me, but this much is for sure: one of us will be wrong.
“In any case, you are completely free to reach the opposite conclusion from me…”
j.a.m. – How gracious of you to extend to me the right to hold an opinion contrary to yours. Now let’s hope you’ll do the same for any “faithful and reasonable Catholic, enlightened by Revelation, etc.” who might also disagree with you , despite your attempt to speak on their behalf.
in the 5th century priests could marry and father children…..then i guess jc or someone sent a new memo…….hypocrits….always have been always will be…..dare give women equal status….it could affect the power balance…..it’s all about control……they live in splendor and you give $$$$$$$$$……….
@Chaim: Everyone has a God-given right to be wrong. I never said otherwise.
j.a.m. – However the right to be being wrong , like any other right (god-given or not) is something which you need to be careful that you don’t abuse.
@Chaim DeLoye Are we now side stepping the issue of women priests and moving onto Galileo? I am more than happy to address the Galileo issue as long as you agree that you know nothing about why the Church has made the claim that only males can be priests and have no response to it.
Most would consider Jesus to have very radical teachings for his time. He had the opportunity to pick female disciples did he not? My guess is that you would consider Him “irrelevant” as well.
Moving onto Galileo, please read the following:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/05/galileo-myths-and-facts.html
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0006.html
To summarize:
At no time did any official Church teaching condemn heliocentrism as heretical. The Pope did not, nor did any bishop, nor did the Inquisition itself. The only statement was a theological opinion issued by the theologians of the Holy Office. Theological opinion does not represent the Magisterium (official teaching) of the Church other scientists then and later were perfectly willing to accept Church guidance in this area, and gradually heliocentrism came to be accepted.
Here’s a question: isn’t posting with the name St. Mary a tiny bit pyblasphemous?
The Church definitely banned the book in which Copernicus taught us heliocentrism clashing with Ptolemy’s ideas. Banned specifically for that reason.
The Church definitely killed a man at least partly because he thought the sun was a star and there were others like it (Bruno).
St. Mary (may we assume that you are neither a “Mary” nor a “saint”?) – I suggest that you take the matter of the Church’s view of geocentrism vs. heliocentrism up with the Popes Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII who declared that heliocentrism was opposed to Sacred Scripture, and condemned the notion of heliocentrism as being in opposition to the Scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition and teachings of the Church as all these supported a geocentric cosmology.
And a few dates to bear in mind…
1616 – On March 5, the Congregation of the Index condemned all writings which treated Copernicanism as anything but an unproven hypothesis. The Congregation declared that such a theory was “false and contrary to Holy Scripture, which teaches the motion of the earth and the immobility of the sun,
1632 – Galileo published the book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in which he openly and enthusiastically advocated the Copernican system and ridiculed the geocentric system.
1633 – On June 22, the Holy Office formally condemned Galileo for heresy: “We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo…have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine which is false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures, that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the earth moves and is not the center of the world…after it has been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture. Pope Urban VIII took full responsibility for the condemnation of Galileo by enforcing “in forma communi” the Congregation’s prohibitions against books holding the Copernican system as truth. Under threat of torture Galileo was forced to recant.
1758 – Pope Benedict XIV removed Copernicus’ book from the Index, after editors removed nine sentences which taught that heliocentrism was a certainty. This was consistent with the Congregation’s decree in 1616 that the book would be banned until “corrected.” However, the Church’s condemnations of Copernicanism on the grounds that its teachings were heretical and contrary to Scripture was not overturned.
1996 – The Vatican abolishes the “Index Librorum Prohibitorum” (List of Prohibited Books). The works of Copernicus , Kepler and Galileo were still on the list.
1992 – 359 years after the Church forced Galileo to recant his theory that the Earth moves around the Sun. Pope John Paul II, in a ceremony in Rome,before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, officially declared that Galileo was right.
As to the Church’s reasons for refusing to ordain women, they have become irrelevant as the Church has no option but to sooner or later reverse their position.
Make that…
1966 – The Vatican abolishes the “Index Librorum Prohibitorum” (List of Prohibited Books). The works of Copernicus , Kepler and Galileo were still on the list.
Edmund Francis Jr. What’s your point?
Here, I can copy and paste stuff too if that’s what you like:
Can it be said that either Paul V or Urban VIII so committed himself to the doctrine of geocentricism as to impose it upon the Church as an article of faith, and so to teach as pope what is now acknowledged to be untrue? That both these pontiffs were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did. As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree. Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope approved the Congregation’s decision in forma communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings which were judged harmful. . . . As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope’s signature.
(Vol. VI, 1909, “Galileo Galilei,” John Gerard)
The Church has stated women’s ordination will not happen ex cathedra. Thus, you are arguing the Galileo issue to attempt to gain steam for women’s ordination when the two issues are completely different. You have no argument against women’s ordination when faced with the theological reasons of why women can’t be priests. If you would like me to detail them I would be more than happy to.
“As to the Church’s reasons for refusing to ordain women, they have become irrelevant as the Church has no option but to sooner or later reverse their position.”
Obviously the Church isn’t irrelevant since you have been spending time reading misinformed articles such as the one above on the topic and responding in the combox. I know I don’t spend this much time debating irrelevant things such as a change in the Mcdonald’s value menu. Thank you for the discussion though, obviously you feel you are doing the right thing which I respect. A bit of knowledge about the faith and theology behind the issue is needed before you can critically think it out. It is obvious you have not done that as you are steering the conversation towards Galileo rather than women priests. Again, I would refer you to the audio lecture from BC College professor/philosopher Peter Kreeft on women’s ordination. After you have listened to that and understood where the Church is coming from I would be happy to oblige further discussion on this. Until then, may God bless you!
MacAttack – to paraphrase William Buckley’s famous quote, ““I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you’re seriously asking that question”.”
Edmund, since you have not made your point let me test my understanding of your point. Because the Church signed a pact with the Facist leader of Italy, that makes the Catholic Church immoral? The pact resolved a longstanding issue between the Church and the Italian Government regarding the sovereignty of the Holy See. It also established the conditions of the Catholic Church in Italy to exercise her religion in a free manner. Please help me understand what you see as immoral about this. Also, tell me what this has to do with the issue of women’s ordination which is what this article is really about.
MacAttack – Oh, I see. Rather than Bill Buckley, you prefer a modification of Ben Franklin’s injunction, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” as a way to judge the Vatican’s dealings with the fascists and Nazis.
Perhaps something along the line of, “They who can give up a higher moral standard and adopt moral relativism in order to obtain a little temporary political safety, have no morals and do not deserve political safety,”?
Mr. Francis – It’s easy to cite agreements that have entered the standard anti-Catholic mythology, but have you actually read the two treaties or the histories behind them? They’re not perfect documents – especially the Concordat – but they certainly are not examples of relativism.