Unless something unexpected occurs, Fr. Roy Bourgeois (pictured) is scheduled to be expelled from his order, the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers, on August 12th. The reasons for this expulsion are set out in a canonical warning (pdf) sent to him by his religious superior, Fr. Edward Dougherty, who warned him that unless he responded appropriately,
I will proceed with dismissal by submitting evidence of your contumacy as a priest who publicly rejects the teaching of the Holy Father (C. 1371), also a priest who acted illegitimately in “communicátio in sacris ”—such as participation in an invalid ordination ceremony of a woman (C. 1384). “Concelebrating” Mass with women analogous to simulation of the Eucharist (C. 1379), giving scandal to the Christian faithful in a serious matter over a two-year period (C.1399) and Disobedience to the instructions and warnings of your legitimate Superiors and the Apostoiic See (C. 601; Mk Const. 40). The dismissal will be submitted to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for confirmation with a request for laicization.
The Reasons for the Dismissal:
In Accordance with Canon 696:1
1 For obstinate disobedience of your legitimate superiors in violation of Canon Law and your Oath to the society and the magisterium
Church in a grave matter.2. Grave scandal given to the people of God, the Church, especially in the United States, and many of the Maryknoll Priests and Brothers.
3. Diffusion of teachings opposed to the definitive teaching of John Paul II and the Magisterium of the Church. (Cf. C. 1024; Ordinatio Sacerdotalis N.4 1994, AA887 -1995-,1 114).
If the facts are as Dougherty’s warning indicates, the case for dismissal seems to be on solid ground. Canon 969.1 provides that:
A member can also be dismissed for other causes provided that they are grave, external, imputable, and juridically proven such as: habitual neglect of the obligations of consecrated life; repeated violations of the sacred bonds; stubborn disobedience to the legitimate prescripts of superiors in a grave matter; grave scandal arising from the culpable behavior of the member; stubborn upholding or diffusion of doctrines condemned by the magisterium of the Church; public adherence to ideologies infected by materialism or atheism; the illegitimate absence mentioned in can. 665, §2, lasting six months; other causes of similar gravity which the proper law of the institute may determine.
Bourgeois has indicated that he does not intend to comply with the canonical warnings he has been issued, and so unless something changes we may expect the requests for his dismissal from his order and for his laicization to be submitted to the Holy See and, in all likelihood, granted.
There is a good bit that can be said about this story, but let’s focus here on the key issue, which is often misrepresented or misunderstood. The key issue driving Fr. Bourgeois’ various actions (giving a homily at an attempted female ordination, attempting concelebration with women, etc.) is his rejection of the Church’s teaching regarding who can be ordained.
So what is that teaching?
Here is the Church’s ordinary magisterial teaching as found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1577 Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.
1578 No one has a right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed no one claims this office for himself; he is called to it by God. Anyone who thinks he recognizes the signs of God’s call to the ordained ministry must humbly submit his desire to the authority of the Church, who has the responsibility and right to call someone to receive orders. Like every grace this sacrament can be received only as an unmerited gift.
Here the Catechism makes several points that Fr. Bourgeois apparently rejects. The first and most obvious is that only a baptized man (the Catechism uses the Latin word vir which specifies a person of the male gender, as opposed to the term homo, which indicates a person of either gender [note well: This is not the same as the Greek word homo, which means “same,” from which we get the word “homosexuality”]) can be ordained.
The Catechism then offers a summary argument for why this is the case. The argument could be put in somewhat more formal form as follows:
1. The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles.
2. The apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.
3. Line 2 shows awareness on the part of the apostles that the Lord Jesus’ choice was binding on them, as well.
4. The ministry of the twelve is in some way perpetuated throughout the whole of Christian history by the college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood.
5. Consequently, the Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself.
6. Consequently, the ordination of women is not possible.
Bourgeois presumably does not object to line 1, given the contents of the New Testament. Whether he accepts line 2 is less clear, for there are some who argue (on spurious grounds) that there were women functioning as apostles in the first century. Bourgeois presumably rejects something in this argument, though, since he disagrees with line 6.
On what grounds does he do so? He appears to have several arguments, some of which have appeared in recent press accounts. For example, the National Catholic Reporter (not the Register) states:
In the letter to his superiors, Bourgeois cites five reasons why he thinks the exclusion of women from the priesthood “defies both faith and reason and cannot stand up to scrutiny.”
I have not been able to obtain a copy of the letter, bur according to the Reporter:
Among them are a 1976 report by the Pontifical Biblical Commission—which, he says, concluded there was “no valid case” against the ordination of women in scripture—and the fact that he believes the call to be a priest comes only from God.
Let’s look at both of these arguments.
Regarding the argument-from-vocation, Bourgeois states:
“I believe our Creator who is the Source of life and called forth the sun and stars is certainly capable of calling women to be priests,” he writes.
This is a remarkably fatuous, grandstanding statement. Obviously God—being omnipotent—can do whatever he chooses, and if he were to choose to call women to the priesthood, he could and would do so. But asserting God’s capacity to do something does nothing to establish its reality. God could make pink unicorns with sparkly eyes and rainbow manes if he wanted, but we have no evidence that he has done so, at least on our planet (or elsewhere, for that matter). The question is not whether God is capable of calling women to be priests but whether he has done so. If the choice of Jesus in selecting his ministers is an indication (as the Church takes it to be) then the answer is that he chooses not to.
Elsewhere Bourgeois has amplified his vocation argument as follows:
“In my ministry over the years I have met many devout women in our church who believe God is calling them to be priests. Why wouldn’t they be called? God created men and women of equal dignity and, as we all know, the call to be a priest comes from God,” he wrote.
Here the argument takes a subjective turn, as Bourgeois appeals to the subjective perception of women he has met who believe that they have a vocation to the priesthood. But just because a person believes this does not mean that they do. Lots of people think they have vocations when, in fact, they do not. Consequently, as the second paragraph we quoted from the Catechism states:
Anyone who thinks he recognizes the signs of God’s call to the ordained ministry must humbly submit his desire to the authority of the Church, who has the responsibility and right to call someone to receive orders.
The subjective perception of a call is thus not an absolute but must be checked against other criteria, including the judgment of the Church and—obviously—whether the perception of a vocation conflicts with known doctrine.
Concerning the 1976 report from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Bourgeois is misrepresenting it. The document does not conclude that there is “no valid case” against the ordination of women in Scripture. That is neither a direct quotation from the document nor is it is a fair summary, as even the Reporter indicates in its own summary of what the document said:
The 1976 report, which was published in Catholic News Service’s Origins documentary service, concluded that there wasn’t enough evidence in the New Testament to “settle in a clear way and once and for all…the possible accession of women to the presbyterate.”
Actually, here is what the document said:
Is it possible that we will come to this even with the ministry of Eucharist and reconciliation which manifest eminently the service of the priesthood of Christ carried out by the leaders of the community?
It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way and once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the presbyterate.
However, some think that in the scriptures there are sufficient indications to exclude this possibility, considering that the sacraments of Eucharist and reconciliation have a special link with the person of Christ and therefore with the male hierarchy, as borne out by the New Testament.
Others, on the contrary, wonder if the Church hierarchy, entrusted with the sacramental economy, would be able to entrust the ministries of Eucharist and reconciliation to women in light of circumstances, without going against Christ’s original intentions.
Rather than saying that there is no valid case from Scripture (Bourgeois’ position), it articulated a mixed position, stating that “some think that in the scriptures there are sufficient indications to exclude this possibility” while others disagree and the drafters of the document feel that the question is open (and difficult to close on scriptural grounds alone).
Now here’s what the Reporter (and apparently Bourgeois himself) didn’t say: The document has zero authority and does not represent the position of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
Why?
Because it was never released. Instead, it’s a draft document that was leaked to the press, which is why they allude to Origins publishing it (you won’t find it on the PBC’s page on the Vatican web site or in collections of the commission’s official works). A leaked, unofficial draft document has no authority and it is misleading in the extreme to represent it in the way that Bourgeois and the Reporter apparently have. (In fact, according ot Origins, it wasn’t even leaked by anyone associated with the PBC but by some third party; see footnote 10 here).
Even if the document had been official, it would not itself be an expression of magisterial teaching. Since its reorganization by Paul VI, the PBC has not functioned as an organ of the magisterium but as an advisory body that operates under the auspices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and that prepares opinion papers for the CDF and the pope.
The Reporter then indicates that Bourgeois is undertaking some of the usual “Here I stand, I can do no other” posing:
When asked how he views his decision to continue his support for women’s ordination in light of his vow as a priest to support church teaching and obey his superiors, Bourgeois said that he felt that his “first allegiance was to God.”
“I’ve always felt that when you see an injustice, really it’s your conscience and faith in God calling you to address the issue and to break your silence. And when your superior tells you to be obedient, then you have to make a decision: Do I follow God or man? And there was no question I must go with my faith in God.”
Bourgeois also raised that issue of the primacy of conscience in his letter, citing a 1968 commentary by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on the Vatican II document on the Church in the modern world, Gaudium et Spes.
“Over the pope ... there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary, even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority,” Bourgeois quotes from the future pope’s words.
As the days tick by until his likely laicization, Bourgeois said he hopes his situation might act as an example for others who are facing similar struggles with their conscience.
“The issue resolves around conscience, and really living out in our lives—all of us, all of us, my family, you, I, all of us—with what we believe. In our lives, in our journey of faith, we are going to come across situations like this—in our church, in our communities, in our families—and we have to make decisions rooted in our faith and our belief in a loving a just God,” said Bourgeois.
“And the decisions that we are going to make will not be easy. It’s going to upset others—our family, our friends. What’s important is to, in a loving way, follow our conscience, not get angry and simply embrace the consequences, the cross. This is what Jesus taught: embracing the cross.”
It is, of course, true that one must obey the certain judgments of one’s conscience, even if they contradict ecclesiastical authority. However, not everyone with a martyr complex is actually called to be a martyr. One can be certain in conscience and still be wrong. It’s especially easy when one displays the kind of shallow thinking reflected here. It may be a comfort to indulge in macho language about following Jesus and embracing the cross in the face of persecution, but the thing about going up against ecclesiastical authority is that you’d better be right—and you usually won’t be.
Especially not the doctrine you’re bucking is infallible—which this one is. But that’s a subject for another post.
In the meantime, what do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
Is this fellow gay in the bargain? His vestments make one wonder.
Jimmy: Here’s the link to the letter Fr. Bourgeois sent the superior general back in April listing his five reasons: http://www.womensordination.org/content/view/345/.
It appears that Fr Bourgeois has forgotten his vows of obedience both as a religious and as a priest. It appears that it does not trouble his conscience to break these… I pray that he may have the grace to recant and repent before it is too late.
maryclare.
God Bless this wonderful man for standing up for what is right!
Thank you for this outstanding article. I’m saddened by the choices Father Roy is making. If he is reading this I want him to know that I am praying for him and for his reconciliation.
@maryclare:
Did he forget, or never fully meant/understood them?
It’s about time. This man has been a scandal for far too long and only God knows how many people he has lead astray. Pray for him and for his eventual reconciliation.
Father Bourgeouis is wrong on ordination of women but his biggest mistake is his disobedience. His ego and pride are leading him astray. As with most or all disoedience this has little to do with his concience being rightly formed. We should pray for him and for all those he has led astray including the women “priests”.
“God could make pink unicorns with sparkly eyes and rainbow manes if he wanted ..”
Jimmy you are a joy to read, as always ..
OK, follow your conscience in matters gravely unjust, I get that. But that would mean that Fr. Bourgeois believes it is a grave injustice NOT to ordain someone - male or female. Except that ordination, as stated above, is a gift. Is it a sin to NOT give someone a gift? If it were, it would not be a gift, but an obligation - a right. No one has said ordination (of male or female) is a ‘right’ of any one, ever. And the gift is not Fr. Bourgeois’ to give. Whether women can be ordained or not at this point becomes immaterial. The gift of ordination is a gift given by the Church, and not Fr. Bourgeois’ to hand out at his discretion.
It’s astonishing how an educated, trained priest can have such little knowledge of our faith. Only a man can enter into the sacred mysteries of our “mother” church and stand in the place of Christ himself, who was a man (but I suppose some would argue that as well). This is also why only a man and woman can be joined in marriage (which I am sure the Reporter and Fr. Bourgeois also reject).
Fr. Bourgeois gives more weight to the statement made by then Cardinal Ratzinger than the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. If ever there was a case of obedience being the better path than following your fallible conscience, this would be it.
We need the examples of the Saints, such as St. Teresa (http://www.catholictradition.org/Saints/virtue6.htm):
St. Teresa was fully persuaded of this truth, which led her to say that if all the Angels together told her to do one thing, while her Superior commanded the contrary, she would always give the preference to the order of the Superior. “Because,” she added, “obedience to Superiors is commanded by God in the Holy Scriptures, and consequently it is of faith, and there can be no deception about it; but revelations are liable to illusion.” And, in fact, she often disclosed to her director things revealed to her by God, and when he disapproved of them, she immediately let them pass.
I see these so-called (false) Catholic priests as imposters who really never were or intended to be real Catholics. These are just men who infiltrate the Catholic Church with an agenda to divide and confuse the laity, and in the process, try and destroy the Church from within. The sad thing is that many good Catholics fall for these wolves in sheeps clothing. Look, if Bourgeois cannot abide by Catholic teachings / Magesterium, there are plenty of other denominations out there that can satisfy his needs along with the needs of potential “priestesses”.......end of story! Whatever happened to humility, such an important Christian concept….maybe we should put more emphasis on God and stop trying to dethrone Him with our inane sensibilities! Our Lord Jesus, who was non-conventional for his times, may have set an example by choosing six men and six women as his apostles, but he didn’t so I think it’s about time that we all get over it.
I find it no coincidence that any number of Catholics follow Mr. Bourgeois’ (assuming his upcoming removal) faulty logic and refuse to submit in regards to contraception, IVF, living together, divorce, and so much more.
The belief that ‘my conscience calls me to make a stand’ has lead so many, too many astray.
“I’ve always felt that when you see an injustice, really it’s your conscience and faith in God calling you to address the issue and to break your silence.”
What of the injustice of telling women that their equality is dependent on being like men? I think that is the great travesty of the “equality = same” approach to gender equity. One of the things that give men and women their particular dignity are those very attributes that are different. The attempt to make women the same as men strips them of their unique dignity and lessens them, degrades them, devalues them.
Whenever you see a priest flagrantly disobeying like this, it’s pretty clear they’re following a spirit other than the Holy Spirit.
Ok, editorial comment first: is canon 696.1 (see the third independent line of the quoted warning) or 969.1 (your second paragraph of surrounding commetary)?
In addition to woeful ignorance about the Church’s teachings on male-only orders and formation of conscience, he seems not to have a very well-developed understanding of holy obedience as historically practiced in Catholic religious orders. You’d think someone who was contemplating a vow of obedience would make himself pretty clear about how it could play out vis-a-vis his own conscience.
Second editorial comment (on my comment): is ‘it’ canon ...?
Sorry.
“Posted by Rick on Thursday, Aug 11, 2011 8:07 AM (EDT):
God Bless this wonderful man for standing up for what is right!”
I agree; Jimmy Akin is a beacon of rational thought in this whole Fr. Bourgeois pretend ordination of women thing.
“...but the thing about going up against ecclesiastical authority is that you’d better be right—and you usually won’t be.
__
Especially not [if] the doctrine you’re bucking is infallible—which this one is.”
__
I really think this sums it up quiet well. Following one’s conscience is great, but there has to be a mechanism for correcting a incorrect conscience, and it seems like he is completely ignoring that mechanism entirely.
Let us separate two issues:
1. Whether it is right for Bourgeois to be laicized.
2. Whether Church teachings against the ordination of women is against faith and reason.
#1 is a procedural question, and the answer is clear: the only option is laicization.
#2 is a substantive question. It is astonishing that anyone can deny that it is true. Scripture offers little guidance. There is no clear teaching in scripture on the ordination of women. Inferences must be drawn. But no inference from scripture can be contrary to reason. Is it contrary to reason to exclude women from ordination? In the sense that neither side on this issue can be called unreasonable, no. Neither inclusion nor exclusion is obviously unreasonable. We are left—as we so often are—with lots of revisable evidence that we must weigh in order to make a decision on this question. The evidence includes:
*the subjective experiences and testimony of women who believe they have been called to the priesthood;
*the practices and witness of Christian communities that do ordain women
*the considered judgments of some scholars that, in fact, women did serve as apostles in the first century
*recognition that the exclusion of women from ordination has, at least in part, been motivated by flawed misunderstandings of the nature of women.
Against this are two pieces of evidence, one of which is not really serious. The fact that the apostles were only men in no way excludes women and, in the absence of a clear teaching, can be explained in terms of deference to the mores of first century Judea. The only remaining argument, then, is that the Church has never ordained women. To be sure, this tradition can have the status of revelation, but by definition the revelation vouchsafed through the tradition of the Church is ongoing and always changing.
I’m with Bourgeois on this one. Too bad he can’t be a priest anymore.
@Chris:
—
You forgot one of the things we are left with: the infallible teaching of the Church. The question has been settled. All the other stuff MIGHT have been worth bringing up earlier (though a fair bit of it is not), but no longer.
—
As it is, the question is no longer up for debate. Now, of course, examining WHY the answer is what it is is a valid way to gain insight into what’s going on. But saying that the answer should be changed is, at this point, a waste of time.
Chris,
There are no Christian communities that ordain women. Protestants do not have a priesthood. Only Catholics and Orthodox too. The same applies to the Mass, sacraments etc.
Jesus has women disciples, but none of them were priests.
Please see:
What is a priest?
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-is-priest.html
Why women were never priests?
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-women-were-never-priests.html
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2011/02/whats-lost-when-women-serve-as-priests.html
Edit: Instead of c. 969.1, it should read 696.1.
Why am I thinking ‘Father Corapi’ here. In both cases we see individual priests setting themselves over their superiors. It is sad that this occurs, and keeps occurring. The same was done by those behind the Protestant Reformation. And history has seen the fruits of those actions. With the prioritizing of ‘conscience’ over obedience as a cardinal principle of Protestantism, we have seen innumerable breaches of obedience there, with the result being today there are nearly 40,000 Protestant denominations. The reason - The Protestant rationale is essentially solipsistic, where each person is potentially a church unto himself. The fact that the Catholic Church remains one, holy, catholic and apostolic is the clear fruit of the doctrine of obedience.
Sounds as if he decided to head up his own church. And shame on the Catholic women who decided to become “priests” under his “authority.” There are plenty of worthy things women can do for the church with its blessing. Too bad the Maryknolls gave him such a long rope over the years, which only has gained him undeserved publicity. He’s a nut. Hope he fades into obscurity after this is all over.
Posted by Rick on Thursday, Aug 11, 2011 8:07 AM (EDT):
God Bless this wonderful man for standing up for what is right!
Rick,
You don’t determine what is right,it is the Lord.
@Chris
Interesting point. It definitly got me to think about the issue in a different light.
He should recant immediately. I was in the Air Force Chaplaincy and worked along side priests. I was not a priest and had no need to be one to serve Holy Church even in the military.
Chris,
Yes tradition is changing, but the sacraments are not. They were instituted by Christ and we cannot change them. This applies to the form and matter of all the sacraments.
Disobediant priest are a cancer on the Church; may they repent soon.
Jimmy already debunked the idea of subjective belief of women on this. It is a flawed argument. Of course, only men are ordained by every body that has real orders (Orthodox and Catholics). The thing about a flawed understanding of the dignity of women is also flawed as equal dignity does not imply sameness. Not all are called to the same kind of service but all are equal in dignity. After all, ALL are called to the greatest office in the Church which is not the priesthood but that of saint.
In the meantime,the criminal bishops untouched - being swished of to Rime and given a nice Basilica to look after (and remaining “Your Eminence”, as a “Prince of the Church”) may be a step down from being Cardinal Archbishop of Boston, but it is a thousand times cushier than what is being done to Father Bourgeois for a far slighter fault. If Law’s being punished, who wouldn’t want to be punished ?
***
And to think that an enabler of abusers is still able to vote in a Papal election ! Father Bourgeois eat your heart out, and do something *really* serious - like wrecking the lives of other Catholics. Then wait for the honours to flow thick and fast. Better still, bribe the Cardinals, and become an “efficacious whatsit to youth”. It worked for Maciel - no defrocking for him !
***
Papal princes immune to censure
by Jason Berry, Irish Times, December, 2009
_ _ _
ANALYSIS: The Catholic Church’s hypocrisy starts right at the top of the organisation, writes JASON BERRY
_ _ _
THE DUBLIN diocesan report spotlights the crisis tearing at the Catholic Church’s central nervous system. At issue is the Vatican’s pathological obsession with protecting guilty church officials.
_ _ _
Since the 1990s, the Vatican has forced at least 15 bishops and one cardinal (the late Hans Hermann Groer of Austria) to step down for sexual abuse of youngsters. The Vatican has defrocked dozens of priests but not one bishop has been so punished – they have been removed from office but not from the priesthood.
Irish-born Anthony O’Connell, who abused three seminarians, resigned as bishop of Palm Beach, Florida in spring 2002. A titular bishop still, he lives in a South Carolina monastery.
_ _ _
Rome’s double standard cloaks prelates guilty of covering up too. Cardinal Bernard Law, whose duplicity in Boston ignited the 2002 scandal, resigned in “disgrace”. But after 16 months in a Maryland convent, Law became pastor of a great basilica in Rome.
_ _ _
The Vatican ignores justice to protect bishops in their role as regents to the pope.
_ _ _
The Roman curia’s injustice is embedded in the youth protection charter that US bishops adopted at their June 2002 convention. The charter pledged to remove any priest who abused a youth; it called for lay review boards to monitor allegations. But the Vatican insisted that bishops be removed from the scope of those boards…
_ _ +_In the meantime,the criminal bishops untouched - being swished of to Rime and given a nice Basilica to look after (and remaining “Your Eminence”, as a “Prince of the Church”) may be a step down from being Cardinal Archbishop of Boston, but it is a thousand times cushier than what is being done to Father Bourgeois for a far slighter fault.
***
And to think that an enabler of abusers is still able to vote in a Papal election ! Father Bourgeois eat your heart out, and do something *really* serious - like wrecking the lives of other Catholics. Then wait for the honours to flow thick and fast. Better still, bribe the Cardinals, and become an “efficacious whatsit to youth”. It worked for Maciel - no defrocking for him !
***
Papal princes immune to censure
by Jason Berry, Irish Times, December, 2009
_ _ _
ANALYSIS: The Catholic Church’s hypocrisy starts right at the top of the organisation, writes JASON BERRY
_ _ _
THE DUBLIN diocesan report spotlights the crisis tearing at the Catholic Church’s central nervous system. At issue is the Vatican’s pathological obsession with protecting guilty church officials.
_ _ _
Since the 1990s, the Vatican has forced at least 15 bishops and one cardinal (the late Hans Hermann Groer of Austria) to step down for sexual abuse of youngsters. The Vatican has defrocked dozens of priests but not one bishop has been so punished – they have been removed from office but not from the priesthood.
Irish-born Anthony O’Connell, who abused three seminarians, resigned as bishop of Palm Beach, Florida in spring 2002. A titular bishop still, he lives in a South Carolina monastery.
_ _ _
Rome’s double standard cloaks prelates guilty of covering up too. Cardinal Bernard Law, whose duplicity in Boston ignited the 2002 scandal, resigned in “disgrace”. But after 16 months in a Maryland convent, Law became pastor of a great basilica in Rome.
_ _ _
The Vatican ignores justice to protect bishops in their role as regents to the pope.
_ _ _
The Roman curia’s injustice is embedded in the youth protection charter that US bishops adopted at their June 2002 convention. The charter pledged to remove any priest who abused a youth; it called for lay review boards to monitor allegations. But the Vatican insisted that bishops be removed from the scope of those boards…
_ _ _
http://www.jasonberryauthor.com/articles/1209_IT.html
That was the practice version - this is the real one (a button for “Preview” or “Edit” really would help):
In the meantime,the criminal bishops are untouched - being swished of to Rome and given a nice Basilica to look after (and remaining “Your Eminence”, as a “Prince of the Church”) may be a step down from being Cardinal Archbishop of Boston, but it is a thousand times cushier than what is being done to Father Bourgeois for a far slighter fault.
***
And to think that an enabler of abusers is still able to vote in a Papal election ! Father Bourgeois eat your heart out, and do something *really* serious - like wrecking the lives of other Catholics. Then wait for the honours to flow thick and fast. Better still, bribe the Cardinals, and become an “efficacious whatsit to youth”. It worked for Maciel - no defrocking for him !
***
Papal princes immune to censure
by Jason Berry, Irish Times, December, 2009
_ _ _
ANALYSIS: The Catholic Church’s hypocrisy starts right at the top of the organisation, writes JASON BERRY
_ _ _
THE DUBLIN diocesan report spotlights the crisis tearing at the Catholic Church’s central nervous system. At issue is the Vatican’s pathological obsession with protecting guilty church officials.
_ _ _
Since the 1990s, the Vatican has forced at least 15 bishops and one cardinal (the late Hans Hermann Groer of Austria) to step down for sexual abuse of youngsters. The Vatican has defrocked dozens of priests but not one bishop has been so punished – they have been removed from office but not from the priesthood.
_ _ _
Irish-born Anthony O’Connell, who abused three seminarians, resigned as bishop of Palm Beach, Florida in spring 2002. A titular bishop still, he lives in a South Carolina monastery.
_ _ _
Rome’s double standard cloaks prelates guilty of covering up too. Cardinal Bernard Law, whose duplicity in Boston ignited the 2002 scandal, resigned in “disgrace”. But after 16 months in a Maryland convent, Law became pastor of a great basilica in Rome.
_ _ _
The Vatican ignores justice to protect bishops in their role as regents to the pope.
_ _ _
The Roman curia’s injustice is embedded in the youth protection charter that US bishops adopted at their June 2002 convention. The charter pledged to remove any priest who abused a youth; it called for lay review boards to monitor allegations. But the Vatican insisted that bishops be removed from the scope of those boards…
http://www.jasonberryauthor.com/articles/1209_IT.html
manticore,
Still beating the dead horse.
Law was cleared by two grand juries in Boston, and is not wanted for any crimes in the U.S. It was the courts that came to the conclusion that he had broken church laws and not state laws.
Berry has not done his homework.
These are facts, refuting his work.
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2011/bvanhove_renderuntoromerev_aug2011.asp
That being said, ordination issues are not related to abuse ones. Being opposed to women’s ordinations, does not mean that one supports abuse or vice versa.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.