Posted on 11/23/2012 3:32:15 AM PST by IbJensen
MARYKNOLL, NY, November 21, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has canonically dismissed Roy Bourgeois from the priesthood because of his public dissent from the Catholic Church’s teaching on the ordination of women. Bourgeois’ dismissal was announced by the Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America, also known as the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers, in a Nov. 19 statement.
As a Maryknoll priest during 2008, Bourgeois participated in a mock ordination of a woman and a simulated Mass at a Unitarian church in Lexington, Kentucky. The radical feminist group Roman Catholic Womanpriests staged the ceremony.
Subsequently Bourgeois was given a “canonical warning” that his actions could result in his excommunication and expulsion from his religious order.
(Roy Bourgeois with two women who attempted to be ordained in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches that it does not have the authority to ordain women, and that any such ordinations are invalid.)
Bourgeois was given thirty days to recant his position, but instead he initiated a campaign against the Church, and published a letter insisting the Church was “wrong” on women’s ordination. “After much prayer, reflection and discernment, it is my conscience that compels me to do the right thing,” he wrote. “I cannot recant my belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in our Church.”
He went on to demand that “all Catholics, fellow priests, bishops, Pope Benedict XVI and all Church leaders at the Vatican ... speak loudly on this grave injustice of excluding women from the priesthood.”
The Vatican responded with a decree saying that any Catholic bishop who attempts the ordination of a woman or any woman who participates in such a ceremony, is subject to automatic excommunication.
This decree is backed up by the late Holy Father John Paul II’s 1994 Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which he states, “In order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, ... 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.”
Bourgeois was excommunicated “Latae sententiae” (meaning “sentence already passed” or automatically) for not recanting his public stance supporting the ordination of women.
The Maryknoll statement says that while “the Holy See and the Maryknoll Society have encouraged his reconciliation with the Catholic Church,” the priest instead “chose to campaign against the teachings of the Catholic Church in secular and non-Catholic venues.”
“This was done without the permission of the local U.S. Catholic Bishops and while ignoring the sensitivities of the faithful across the country. Disobedience and preaching against the teaching of the Catholic Church about women’s ordination led to his excommunication, dismissal and laicization.”
Bourgeois, 74, called his expulsion from the priesthood and the Maryknoll order “very difficult and painful,” in a Nov. 20 statement published by the “Women’s Ordination Conference.”
“The Vatican and Maryknoll can dismiss me, but they cannot dismiss the issue of gender inequality in the Catholic Church,” the statement said. “The demand for gender equality is rooted in justice and dignity and will not go away.”
The Maryknoll Fathers’ statement says, “Mr. Bourgeois freely chose his views and actions, and all the members of the Maryknoll Society are saddened at the failure of reconciliation. With this parting, the Maryknoll Society warmly thanks Roy Bourgeois for his service to mission and all members wish him well in his personal life.
“In the spirit of equity and charity, Maryknoll will assist Mr. Bourgeois with this transition,” the Fathers conclude.
If the majority of women voted Obama then no I think not sir.
The priest is actually offering a 'sacrifice' albeit unbloody it's still sacrificial. Women shouldn't concern themselves with standing on an altar sacrificing.
Jesus Christ chose as his diciples, as well as the leader he left behind to continue his Church on earth, all men. There was, of course, a reason for this as these single men would devote their lives to sacrifice, even death, to spread the gospel of Jesus.
Priests today are to follow that example and devote their lives to Jesus Christ and to their parishoners. Their role in the priestly life is to set an example for others and not allow their minds to dwell on filthy things like fondling little children. Those priests are destined to spend an eternity in hell after they get that millstone from around their necks.
Women have a different role in a proper society.
They are to bear and rear children, unless they too have entered Church life as a nun, and provide the warmth and comfort that a family deserves in a Christian home.
The sin today is that women want to dress like men and do men things like fighting a faceless enemy in a trench on the front lines. There is something radically wrong with this. A nation that puts their women in combat situations isn't worth defending.
Speaking of defending. We haven't defended our nation for what seems to be like eons.
I realize this is a rather lengthy discourse on your wishing politically correct feminine things on the Catholic Church.
Next week I'll talk to you about why condoms, wanking, abortion, pornography and homosexuality are not good things.
Thank you.
They could have saved a few bytes or ink and just said: “Because we say so.” or “So it is written, so it shall be done.”
This is one of those cases where logic holds no sway.
Compromise is the welcome mat to deception.
First, thanks for your outlook on why a mental job is only performed by men.
Second...
>rather lengthy discourse on your wishing politically correct feminine things on the Catholic Church.
Sorry, I asked a question, I have no PC desires or any other BS you wish to inject into my words.
Of course women have no role in trench combat or in battle conditions. All the other strawmen crap having nothing to do with my question deserves no response.
If you don’t think a Nun has devoted all of herself to the Church then I can’t help you.
Please DO let the door hit you on the way out...
Sorry you didn’t take the time to actually read it. You seem to think it needs to be boiled down to a cute catch phrase like “Because we say so” or “So it is written, so it shall be done.” Actually if you feel the need to “save a few bytes of ink” I suppose one could trivialize it to “we do not have the authority”.
I agree. There is no way you could me with this issue or anything else. Your mind is interesting, however.
Now stay away from me as I don’t care to engage in an intellectual discourse with someone so obviously incapable.
My thread. Get off....or else you’ll be held in contempt.
Go join a church where the ‘preacher’ is female.
No, Ib, you POSTED a thread on JimRob's forum. It is open for discussion, since that is what we do.
It is contempuous for anyone to think otherwise.
That said, tho never part of the largest cult in the world, dedicated to the idea that it holds the ONLY KEYS to Heaven's Gate, I disagree vehemently. I got mine directly from the owner!
Claiming to be the only arbiter of faith makes your group a cult, and I know you will disagree. BUT, I also have an opinion, not based on what my groups Catechism taught me, but based on Scripture. Of course your response would be "NO Sola Scripture".
I am positive their are many good Christians within the RCC group. But, God may have given Peter the keys, but he apparently loaned them to a bunch of hypocrites! For examples, study RCC history of their alleged infallibility"! If your group was truly led by Christ, there would be no great stores of gold and riches. History does not need any of them! They will all burn at the end, in the refinery!
I will pray for the RCC to get right with God. I will welcome your prayers, as well, but I am assured of my salvation. I believe in Christ's sacrifice having been made for any believer, not just being allowed by some guys in elegant gowns touting that they can refuse my right to get some bread or wine in remembrance of our Savior.
There are too many things y'all are willing to overlook within God's Word... and blindly accept it because that is all you were taught. I can give another example of that, but at least your group doesn't promise a bunch of virgins for jihad results (think BOOM!).
John 3:16 says it all! Paul spoke to the Roman church long ago, and noted their PRIDE in their spirituality.
Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?
5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.
Ping. Interesting thread and discussions.
autumnraine: “Jesus never did it because societal norms and laws of the time of Jesus wouldn’t allow.”
You’re seriously going to claim that Christ, who was crucified for repeatedly challenging the establishment’s religious rules, wasn’t daring enough to stand up to the “societal norms and laws of the time” concerning women? Do you realize just how nonsensical that is?
AnAmericanMother: “He did exactly what He intended.”
I see you beat me to it. Yes. You’re absolutely right, except I’d modify your statement to say Christ did what God the Father wanted. Christ made it quite clear He was following God’s will. It’s a minor distinction, because Christ and God have complete unity of purpose, but it’s a distinction Christ Himself made.
autumnraine: “In those days (as in some current nations), that kind of talk and thinking would get the woman killed.”
LOL. Seriously. Christ and most of the apostles were brutally killed for the faith, but Christ, who repeatedly bucked the norms of His time, didn’t pick women out of concern for their safety?
Odd isn’t it, that many who criticize the RC Church for minimizing the role of women are the same who accuse the RC Church of worshiping Mary...
COBOL2Java: “I suppose one could trivialize it to “we do not have the authority”.”
Actually, that sums it up perfectly. If someone claims to be a Christian, then they’re obligated to follow Christ’s teachings. I, personally, have no problem with women in leadership positions. I have worked (secular jobs) for women in the past and would have no problem doing so again. However, my feelings about the matter are irrelevant to the discussion. The only thing that matters is what Christ said, including the things He taught the apostles which they subsequently shared with us in their writings. I simply have no authority whatsoever to change that.
All that blather directed against Roman Catholics is nothing but sophomoric rant.
Go start a thread of your own that’s against the Church to which I belong and believe in.
Go kayaking.
They weren't in the Apostolic Succession, but that didn't stop the persecutions or the martyrdoms.
And Christ knew that. "Take up thy Cross, and follow me."
They weren't in the Apostolic Succession, but that didn't stop the persecutions or the martyrdoms.
And Christ knew that. "Take up thy Cross, and follow me."
Oh, and another thing, Kayaker.
For the privilege of using Mr. Robinson’s website I pay twice annually.
How much have you contributed since you first signed on and established your handle and password?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.