Female ordination? Infallibly condemned by the ordinary magisterium, explicitly so in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Artificial contraception? Condemned again and again by all Christians, not just Catholics, up to 1930. Can never be approved.
Divorce and remarriage? Condemned directly by Our Lord Himself in the pages of Scripture. Can never be approved.
This is really pretty simple. Men who can't explain, defend, and support these teachings should not only get out of the priesthood, they should have the integrity to go down the street to the Episcopal church.
I live in Nashville; Bishop Choby is my bishop. I support what he's doing, although personally I would have removed Fr. Breen, since this is far from his first offense.
BTW, apropos of this situation, I did a little additional research into Fr. Breen. Do you know that a couple of years ago they served the Eucharist like a party snack at St. Edward's? I mean they put the Precious Blood into a bowl, and the Hosts into a dish, and people picked up a host, dipped it into the bowl and communicated themselves?
That, to me, doesn't express a "love for the Church" or a commitment to the service of the people of God. It expresses contempt for liturgical law and a complete absence of faith in the Real Presence.
"Lest we do not highlight sufficiently this important fact. Vatican II was an ecumenical council, i.e., a solemn exercise of the magisterium of the church, i.e. the college of bishops gathered together with the bishop of Rome and exercising a teaching function for the whole church. In other words, its vision, its principles and the direction it gave are to be followed and implemented by all, from the pope to the peasant farmer in the fields of Honduras. Since Vatican II there has been no such similar exercise of teaching authority by the magisterium. Instead, a series of decrees, pronouncements and decisions which have been given various "labels" stating, for example, that they must be firmly held to with "internal assent" by the Catholic faithful, but in reality are simply the theological or pastoral interpretations or opinions of those who have power at the centre of the church. They have not been solemnly defined as belonging to the "deposit of the faith" to be believed and followed, therefore, by all Catholics, as with other solemnly proclaimed dogmas. For example, the issues of celibacy for the priesthood and the ordination of women, withdrawn even from the realm of discussion. Therefore, such pronouncements are open to scrutiny -- to discern whether they are in accord, for example, with the fundamental theological vision of Vatican II, or whether there is indeed a case to be made for a different interpretation or opinion.
At the heart of this is the question of conscience. As Catholics, we need to be trusted enough to make informed decisions about our life, our witness, our expressions of faith, spirituality, prayer, and involvement in the world -- on the basis of a developed conscience. And, as an invitation to an appreciation of conscience and conscientious decisions about life and participation in what is a very human church, I close with the formulation or understanding given by none other than the theologian, Fr. Josef Ratzinger, now pope, when he was a peritus, or expert, at Vatican II:
"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). Bishop Kevin Dowling C.Ss.R. Cape Town, June 1, 2010