I just don’t understand why women want to be priests….It’s as if they would want a sex change.

Both women and men have their roles in the church.  Men are to represent Jesus and women to represent Mary.  Why would a woman who is a true catholic that is considering a vocation not want to represent the mother of our Lord and Church. 

What’s next? Men wanting to be nuns?

Here’s the thing I don’t understand, Teddy:  if men and women are supposed to be equal, because they are made in the equal dignity of God, why should everything have to be defined by what men do?  This is not to say that we should go back to most women staying home, and sexism of any sort is just not on.  But it does disturb me when the workplace makes it difficult for women to balance having a family, and when other women, even, look down on stay-at-home moms.

It would be interesting to hear his opinions on other church teachings, such as homosexuality and abortion.  Probably not going too far out on a limb to guess where he falls on those issues.

“For 77 years I have been a nun because they won’t let me be a priest,” said Sister Rose Margaret Noonan, 93, of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet. “I have said my whole life that women should be priests, but nobody listens to me.”

I looked up the Sisters of St. Joseph website. They have given up their habits, they have not given up the wish to be men.

Good riddance. The weeds need to be removed from Christ’s garden.

AMEN Teddy!!!!

It’s not just about “obey(ing) our leaders” it’s about serving our God in service to His people. “(L)oyalty to conscience”?, what about the oath of becoming a Priest? What about loyalty to the Church? To your Order and Bishops? To your ministry and the people you serve? What about you and your soul? Are you just another protestant with a “better” idea about how you think the Church should repond to 2000 years of “new” ideas? Father Roy Bourgeois come back to the Church, to the ministry God called you to, to your service. I pray that you say, “I recant.” Come back, you will be a better priest in service to The Church than someone helping to fracture The Church.

Fr. Bourgeois is missing one important idea, and most men who want women to be priests miss it also.  Perhaps because it’s not flattering to them. 

It’s simply that the priesthood is a gift to men - because THEY NEED IT. 

I know that women would be great priests, and even better than most men that I know.  But, then what room would be left for the boys?  They’re weak, fallible, men.  They can’t bring themselves to ask for directions, can’t remember what you told them 5 minutes ago…  (a woman will remember what you muttered under your breath 15 years ago - and will remind you!! Do you want that for your confessor?? )

The gift of priesthood for men isn’t by their superiority, it’s for their need to step up - to “man up”.  And to lead our sons, brothers, fathers and husbands, to be the men they are called to be.

Nadster, it is more than possible to hold the belief that women are called to the priesthood while also being staunchly pro-life and in line with Church teaching in all other ways.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  I also fail to see how a sense of being called to the priesthood on the part of a female translates into “the wish to be men,” as Miriam puts it; or want a sex change, as Teddy so delicately put it.  There are many aspects of being a priest that are more inherent to the female role - nurturing and teaching, to name two critical aspects of a good priest.  Yes, I understand the teaching behind the all-male priesthood.  And while I don’t generally openly question the hierarchy, I don’t see that my questioning of the logic (or lack thereof, imo) behind the teaching significantly detracts from my Mass attendance, hours in prayer, and devotion to Mary.  Kick me out if you want, Myles Keogh, but there may be more weeds than you anticipate.  Perhaps you want Christ’s garden to be the select few who never question authority or dogma; I’m not sure that’s how He saw it.

From the quotes I’ve heard by Fr. Bourgeois, he sounds more like a marxist than a christian. His touting conscience over fidelity to the Church is a tired cliché uttered by self declaring martyrs. Others who behave like him manage to obscure the fact that one’s conscience must be properly formed and informed. A properly formed conscience would necessarily conform to Church teaching. His dissent from that teaching and his unwillingness to obey the legitimate authority of the Church clearly indicates that he has allowed himself to buy into an agenda that merely serves goals quite foreign to the Gospel. Thus, he is not entitled to play the conscience card. Fr. Bourgeois promotes an agenda which attempts to wrest power from those to whom that God-given authority properly belongs, i.e., the bishops. For Fr. Bourgeois and his ilk, the struggle is all about stealing power that does not belong to them. They appeal to our sense of justice in order to demand that others accept that it’s their right to steal from the Church. Their version of equality merely perverts justice: a petulant attempt by misguided individuals who are attempting to claw their way into the hierarchy. Fr. Bourgeois should go join the Episcopalians. They need all the bodies they can get.

Everyone is not born equal, but we are equally God’s children.

“For 77 years I have been a nun because they won’t let me be a priest,” said Sister Rose Margaret Noonan, 93, of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet. “I have said my whole life that women should be priests, but nobody listens to me.”
Father Bourgeois, she said, listened to her and fought for her cause.
“(H)er cause.” I guess I naively thought God called our priests and religious for “His” cause? Unrequited love!?! Is it 77 years of misplaced yearnings for what “I want” and not what God has called us to do and be? Sounds like what many people do; praying to God to fulfill our idea of what we think our life should be and not praying for what God’s plan is for us. Maybe this is why we find ourselves in so many life and Church problems.

He was “a revolutionary in Bolivia” ... whuh?  What does this mean?  Please explain, Mr. Laugesen ... this sounds big but you throw this phrase out and then ignore it ... ???

Yes, Father, conscience “is very important to God.”  But that presupposes a properly-formed conscience; which yours, unfortunately, is not.  It is not formed on solid doctrine or tradition but on the sentimental whims of yourself and those who would “correct” the teachings of the Church founded by Christ while He lived on earth.

Yes, Father, keep a conscience.  But keep some humility as well.

I beg to differ;

We are each and all made by the Hand of and in the Image of God-we are each and all, His creation.
When we, individually recognize and accept this fact, when we realize we are sinners in need of a Savior and that God in His love and compassion has sent his only begotten Son to be that Savior, then and only then, do we become God’s chidren.

Circular logic, Warren.  “a properly formed conscience would necessarily conform to Church teaching.”  I’ve never understood this argument.  If this is true, what’s the point of the conscience clause in the first place?  It essentially boils down to, “You must believe Church teaching to have a fully formed conscience; if you question church teaching, you obviously do not have a fully formed conscience.”  There’s no way out of the circle, and in essence no way to obtain a fully formed conscience because one will necessarily never question (so there really isn’t much need of a conscience then, is there).  There is such a thing as reasonable doubt, reasonable questions. We aren’t talking about abortion in which there is no justifying the taking of a human life; or even contraception, which has always been contradictory to Church teaching.  Prior to the mid-1990s, belief in women’s ordination was not in the mainstream but also not dogmatically entrenched, so I don’t see it being so strange that there are still people who advocate it. I can see there being more of an issue with his outspokenness - I agree that it is unnecessarily attention-grabbing in the case of women’s ordination (his objection to the School of the Americas is another matter).  But telling someone who has questions about a dogma that wasn’t infalllibly codified until essentially this year that they don’t have a fully formed conscience seems… prideful.

“Instead, they question the teachings with emotional and practical concerns.”
—
This is the problem right here. It doesn’t matter how much you want it. It doesn’t matter whether or not it appeals to some warm and fuzzy idea of what you personally think is fair. It doesn’t matter if it would make things easier. It’s not possible.
—
Richard G says: “If this is true, what’s the point of the conscience clause in the first place? It essentially boils down to, “You must believe Church teaching to have a fully formed conscience; if you question church teaching, you obviously do not have a fully formed conscience.”  There’s no way out of the circle…”
—
This is true. There is no way around infallible Church teaching. None. That is not what the conscience is for. Conscience has it’s purpose, but this is not it.

Bye bye! Bourgeois…....humility, look into it, it might do you some good!

@Richard G: “Nadster, it is more than possible to hold the belief that women are called to the priesthood while also being staunchly pro-life and in line with Church teaching in all other ways.”

Incorrect.  The Church also teaches that its doctrines regarding faith and morals are infallible.  Holding the belief women are called to the priesthood denies the infallibility of the Church, meaning you are not in line with Church teaching ‘in all other ways.’

“There is such a thing as reasonable doubt, reasonable questions.”

Reasonable questions, yes; reasonable doubt, no, not if you believe the Church is infallible regarding faith and morals, regardless of when the doctrine was defined.  Questions are meant to help us understand why the Church teaches what it does, while accepting its teaching.  If you do not think the Church is infallible regarding faith and morals, then I have to wonder why you would want to be part of it.

“We aren’t talking about abortion in which there is no justifying the taking of a human life; or even contraception, which has always been contradictory to Church teaching.”

If you do not believe the Church is infallible regarding faith and morals, then your sentence is pointless because someone’s conscience may tell them to believe something different than what you have above.  Also, we are talking about something serious.  Women are not being called to be priests (as proven by the Church’s infallible teaching regarding it).  So if people go to women ‘priests’ for the Eucharist or the sacrament of reconciliation, they are being tricked into thinking they have received something they have not.

“But telling someone who has questions about a dogma that wasn’t infalllibly codified until essentially this year that they don’t have a fully formed conscience seems… prideful.”

There is nothing wrong with having questions (a 1000 questions does not a single doubt make) about a dogma, but if they disagree with what the Church has definitively stated as true, then we should question the logic and reasons for what they believe.

Father Bourgeois said. “I am experiencing very deep sadness. I am hurt and disappointed. The coldness of the letter is very painful.”

Here is the crux of the problem: It is all about Roy Bourgeois. What about the people scandalized, hurt and offended by his action? So sad. It brings thing full circle, for the first man chose himself over God. Same with Rev. Fr. Roy Bourgeois.

The article on Father Bourgeois states “The Superiors said Father Bourgeois has given “grave scandel” to the people of God, the Church and Maryknoll priests and brothers.” Additonally, they say “he has caused diffusion of teaching opposed to the definitive teaching of John Paul II and the Magisterium of the Church.” Too bad the Church did not act with the same speed they have to laicize Father Bourgeois with the over 6,000 priests who have sexually abused children here in the U.S. According to Bishop Accountability.org over 100,000 children have been sexually abused. Yet the Vatican stated only 600 priests, world wide, have been laicized over years of abuse, not just the priests in the U.S. Guess betraying the children by priests who were supposed to protect them, give them guidance and religious training through the Church’s teachings and sacred Scripture doesn’t have the same urgency as this case has. Especially with the damage done to the Church, bankruptcy of dioceses and closing of churches and Catholic schools and the harm done to the communities and the faithful flock. Then the Church officals wonder why they have no credibility.

“Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold on to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”

—Matthew 6

@ Richard G., Bl. J.H. Newman’s Letter to the Duke of Norfolk will answer your question about conscience.  The problem today is that people don’t know what conscience is when they appeal to it.  According to theology, conscience is a practical judgment of reason about a here and now action.  It is the result of applying certain principles (learned from revelation or from the wisdom of the community) to relevant knowledge of one’s situation.  Thus, to inform one’s conscience means to turn to the Church for principles.  The personal aspect comes in applying those principles.  Fr. Bourgeois dissents on the level of principle which is not properly speaking conscience, albeit, his dissenting principles lead to an erroneous conscience.  Ultimately, his is a problem of ecclesial faith and belief that the Holy Spirit guides the Church to all truth.
As to the teaching on the reservation of ordination solely to women, this is the ordinary teaching of the Church.  It has not defined by the extraordinary magisterium, because until recently it had not been challenged.  The Church does not define doctrines unless they are attacked.
As to Mary Magdalene as “Apostle to the Apostles,” again Fr. Bourgeois gets confused.  The first time the word is used is the literal sense of “one sent” and the second time in the more specific sense of the office.  It would be quite odd if the Apostles regarded Mary as an Apostle, yet they did not choose her to replace Judas.

It’s far, far, far, far too little too late. This vile little heretic should have been defrocked years ago, and anyone so delusional as to believe that he would recant should lose their position. The damage done by allowing heretics to retain the outward appearance of the clerical state is incalculable.

Screw Tape opened his squeaky old tackle box and pushed aside all the shiny political lures to pull out an ostentatious over sized silver Spoon with fancy engraving on it. He squints and reads “Progressive Elite, I ALWAYS know better than you!” Ah that’s the one. He ties it on a supple dogwood limb. But before casting the line he stops and polishes it up with an extra dab from an old apothecary bottle he had first labeled eons ago in an old, old garden, his best ever fishing secret; the letters on the label are so worn that one can hardly make them out but burn with a red glow as the bottle warms in his scaly hands; “PRIDE the Old Reliable”. He chuckles as the hook sinks home and muses over the coming 500 year birthday bash the boss has planned for Martin Luther. He calls young Spike to fetch his net and stringer and notes with satisfaction that there are 157 empty links left on the stringer chain.
Priests are people, real pity some people never learned enough to just get a beer and go fishing instead of being landed.

So he was formally excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 2008 and is now concerned about his impending dismissal from the Maryknoll order, as if that’s a worse punishment?  Don’t you have to be Catholic to be a Maryknoll?  Also, does the Church have the authority to laicize a priest it’s already expelled?  Of what church is he currently a priest?  It’s a damned shame his conscience has been so deformed by feminist ideology that he thinks he’s being a hero.  Let’s pray he can avoid final punishment on grounds of “invincible ignorance.”

I wonder when Father Bourgeois and Sister Rose Margaret pray, do they do all of the talking?  Maybe they have closed their hearts to wisdom and obedience.

Wsquared and Nadster—Obviously you are not true Catholics.  You probably favored the idea of having Ernie and Burt be seen as gay puppets and should be married on a children’s show.

The current gender-bending and genderless fixation of our society is disturbing. 

Yes, men and women are to be equal, but it should have it’s limits and poeple with morals and are mentally stable should know better.  I question the two of you in regards to faith, morals and mentality (though it truly seems you are nothing but tag-team trolls on this site).

Have a blessed day…

I get sick of people quoting the “conscience clause” as if that were the end and summation of all the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about it. Let’s look at sections 1790-1792:

A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. … Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case where a man “takes little trouble to find out what is good and true, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin” (Gaudium et Spes, 16). In such cases, the person is culpable for the sins he commits.
Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching [emphasis mine], lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

The individual conscience is not a “golden hammer”, nor is it a direct line to God’s will. So far as the Church teaches a “primacy” of the individual conscience, the meaning is solely that, at the end of all things, we alone are responsible for our actions, that we can’t lay off our sins on “we were only following orders” or peer pressure. But conscience offers no protection against the taint of sin ... especially not the sin of pride.

I hate this absconding of the conscience to justify dissent, as in “imperfectly formed consciences.”  The true measure of a conscience is “fitness for use.”  The more perfectly our conscience is formed, the more capable we are to give and receive love.  An imperfectly formed conscience renders the holder unable to love in any significant way, and thus unable to receive eternal life.  So there’s really no advantage to struggling along with a shriveled conscience - it renders you a spiritual dwarf.  On the other hand, a conscience developed along the teachings of the Church is brought up into “the full measure of Christ.”  Those are the real giants, the real heroes.  We should look to these holy men and women, not to the imperfectly formed consciences navigating conspicuously the wide way to perdition.  This soon to be ex-priest is living in a shadowland of satanic deceit.  The real measure of his culpability lies in the souls he’s mislead in his sacerdotal office.  Puny consciences should’t presume to teach, or hold a clerical position.

Richard G. / Leave if you wish you won`t be the first. There are the prostentants, Lutherans etc. As for the weeds being gathered, “the angels will do that on judgement day and throw them into the fire.” Christ`s words. This whole idea of woman priests is nothing new and all part of the misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Post Vat. II Consiliar Documents and influenced by the rampant secularism and progressive liberal
beliefs that Pope St. Pius X warned about in his Encyclical “Pascendi Domeninci Gregis.” Evil has invaded the Church as we have been warned it would and has been either conciously or unconciously promoted by clerics and certain bishops, and Bishop Clark of Rochester N.Y. comes to mind. Ther were two recent meetings of such people one in Detroit in June of this year which included such groups of woman as the American Catholic Council (Acc) Womans Ordination Council amongst others and their theme was
“Motiffs of the Spirit of Vatican II and Diversity Respect for academic Theological Differances.” An illicit mass was concelebrated with a retired
priest whose name escapes me at the moment even though permission was denied them by the Bishop of Detroit who told them they were not in communion with Rome. Some key note speakers included the womans ordination advocate Joan Chitister OSB and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend an avowed advocate of pro-abortion and gay marriage.They all drink from the same cup. Another meeting was just held down South somewhere with the same
theme where the emphasis seemed to be on the female spiritual superiority of woman. There should be a lot more excommunications than there have been but I believe on the face of it, all Benedict XVI is doing the best he can with the dismissal of a bishop in Australia recently and the closing of a Trappist Monastery. The Maryknolls should have gone out of existance some time ago. They are down to 300 priests nationwide and the Jesuits who have been largely responsible for a good deal of this are
dwindling in great numbers having already turned over much of their charges in Washington D.C. to the laity. Somehow I believe it will all work itself out in time as people come to realize what these groups are really advocating and realize that the Church is not a Democracy. It`s not gonna change with the trend. Aint gonna happen. It is what it is and has been for 2 thousand years. Live it, believe it or find another way. In
the future I believe the Church will be much smaller and more focused on it`s core teachings. It is after all a gift from God and as it is said many are called, but few are chosen. Pax.

It sounds like the author of this article is sympathetic to the ‘former’ Father’s cause. Mr. Wayne seems to be saying that there might be legitimate support for Father Bourgeois’ stance, “Though Father Bourgeois is indisputably in conflict with Church doctrine and authority, he and his position are not lacking support….“Of course, Father Bourgeois is in error. He should be obedient or leave.  As for the author, you should be more careful in communicating your misplaced sympathies especially in writing for a Catholic publication.

You can try to get rid of me, but I’m not leaving until Il Papa tells me so, and he won’t.  In many essential ways, my opinion about women priests is inconsequential.  Do I know Christ?  Do I pray that He will have me?  Do I appropriately celebrate the sacraments to increase my Communion with Him?  Those are the essential questions.  Yes, I do have questions about that particular teaching.  No, I don’t see that there is any reason or logic behind the teaching.  You combox folks who want to control who is and is not in your Church are prideful.  I suggest you be careful with that pride.  I am quite confident in my relationship with Jesus and the Church, and I’m very certain He would not suggest I stop receiving the Eucharist because I don’t see the logic behind the all-male priesthood.  There are definitely dangers to progressivism - most of you enjoy pointing those out to people.  There are also dangers to fundamentalism.  I can believe everything the Church teaches and spout it off til I’m blue in the face.  What does my practice look like?  If you think you’re safe because you have never doubted that women aren’t to be ordained, good luck.  I’ll take my doubt and my practice, thank you, and I don’t plan on leaving.  So Tom T, I hope I see you in Church some time.  Then you can tell me to my face that you want me to leave.  Or perhaps we’ll sit quietly together and enjoy the presence of Jesus.  We’ll see which one you prefer.

“How can we deny them the right to follow a calling from God just because they are women?”

Fr Bourgeois considers the priesthood as a “right”.
That’s the exact opposite. The priesthood isn’t a honorific distinction but instead a commitment for life to serve Christ, the Church and all our fellows men and women

Missing from the article/discussion is the fact that according to the Orate Fratres website Mr. Roy actually “co-celebrated” a false ordination of a red head named Janice as a “Roman Catholic Womanpriest in Lexington, Kentucky on Aug. 9, 2008”:

http://fratres.wordpress.com/2008/12/12/father-roy-bourgeois-excommunicated-text/comment-page-1/#comment-7369

He is according to their spokesperson Betsy still a member of Maryknoll. “Let’s see he is still a member of Maryknoll … guess that’s so they can keep on cutting Maryknoll checks to pay his rent. Betsy says:

“He lives outside Fort Benning, Ga. The School of the Americas Watch is his ministry. Peace and Justice work is his ministry. He speaks around the country on many issues of peace.”

Peace and Justice, Justice and Peace, well that just says it all … “Betsy” does not say who his “immediate male supervisor” was; perhaps he has never really had one, but whoever he is he did not do Mr. Bourgeois any favors by tolerating his obsessive compulsive preoccupation with secular “progressive” politics for apparently decades on end instead of showing true love by setting him on a less self-destructive path.

If they are going to continue to pay his rent the best thing Maryknoll could do for him now is to find him an apartment across the street from an Abortion clinic and get this guy refocused on the real core evil in America. Then he could focus on REAL JUSTICE FOR REAL VICTIMS as there are 2 of them with each and every Abortion. He could also become more familiar with what the “Progressives” are all about by being arrested for praying too close to the door; after being mollycoddled and televised at Ft. Benning he will get a real taste of the repressive fascist pro-abortion laws foisted on the country by his best buds the Kennedy, Cuomo, Pelosi, Kucinich et alia abortuary protectors. He can count on NOT being televised if arrested and he will surely run into a better class of mentors outside of the abortuary.

@Richard G: “In many essential ways, my opinion about women priests is inconsequential.”

First off, I do not want you to leave the Church, but I do want you to see that you are making a mole hill out of a mountain.  You list several specific instances that you use to show your communion with Jesus and His Church.  Here is a more general question: “Do you believe the Church speaks infallibly regarding faith and morals?”  If you answer “yes”, then you MUST adhere to what the Church teaches regarding women’s ‘ordination’ since it has been defined as part of our deposit of faith.  This does not mean you must understand the reasoning, but you must assent to it.  Otherwise, it reveals your “yes” as a lie.

You warn others of pride (rightfully so), but you seem to be claiming that you know better than the Church, and therefore God!  I cannot imagine a better and more dangerous example of true pride.

Perhaps it defends on what your definition of “adhere” means.  Do I plan on walking outside and carrying a sign around advocating for women’s ordination?  No.  Do I tell people that the Church is silly for not endorsing it?  No.  Do I even generally speak on the issue other than in comboxes?  No.  Is that adherence?  Do I see any logic whatsoever in the CCC’s descriptions of the male-only priesthood?  No.  Does that mean I’m not adherent?  Do I pray for guidance in all issues, including this one?  Yes.  Let me ask you: why would you wish to make this a mountain?  What difference would it make if I were to say, “Wait, I see.  YES!  IT MAKES SENSE!”  Perhaps one day I will, but I do not see that there will be much difference in my salvation on that day.  I admit it, I have always had difficulty with you black and white thinkers.  I’m much more of a process-oriented man myself.  I don’t find dualistic thinking to be so helpful.  “Either you accept or you don’t?  Assent or perish.”  Really?  That seems very OT to me.  Jesus said, “Come, follow me,” not “Assent or perish.”  He made it clear on several occasions that He was the only way to Heaven.  He also made it clear that observance of the Law was NOT the way to Heaven.  I repeat that strict fundamentalism has its own set of dangers.  Perhaps you all agree with the Baptists: once you gain Salvation, nothing can take it away from you.  That doesn’t work with Catholicism.  We have a constant process of coming closer to Christ.  My opinion about women’s ordination, right or wrong, is inconsequential because prayer is the process that will increase faith and lead to salvation.

Where did I say ‘Assent or perish’, ‘once saved, always saved’, or ‘you must follow the Law of the OT to get to Heaven’?  Please stop making assumptions because you have been wrong on every account.

Assent means that you humbly agree with what the Church teaches as part of the deposit of faith for the simple reason that it has taught it as such, regardless of your level of understanding.  It is incredibly beautiful and helpful when you do understand, but it is not needed.

Why is this important?  If you claim to be Catholic and do not trust what the Church teaches, then you do not trust the founder of the Church.  Your ‘process’ is very dangerous because it is the same ‘process’ that leads people to heresies and denying things such as the sacraments.  You feel you are growing closer to Christ, but how do you know you (including your conscience) are not being deceived?  One of the measuring sticks Christ gave us is the doctrines of His Church.  Adherence to them means adherence to Christ.  Denial of some doctrines means you either deny Christ gave the Church His authority (contrary to Scripture) or you deny that Christ has authority over all things.

A long process of prayer, discernment, and logical thinking have led me to what you mis-label as ‘black-and-white thinking’, which is where you should want to be.  For example, let’s consider the Eucharist.  What if my ‘process’ (as it has with Protestants and many Catholics) has not allowed me to understand the Eucharist?  I could then simply dismiss it as not being the Body of Christ, but because of my ‘b-&-w thinking’ (aka trust in Christ’s Church), I can immediately recognize my ‘process’ is wrong and change it to help me grow closer to Christ.
So your opinion about women’s ordination has consequences because you are praying to Jesus, telling Him you want to obey Him (I hope), but then denying His authority by denying the authority that He gave to His Church.

Dennis, let’s not get into a contest about who’s misunderstanding who. 
“Here is a more general question: “Do you believe the Church speaks infallibly regarding faith and morals?”  If you answer “yes”, then you MUST adhere to what the Church teaches regarding women’s ‘ordination’ since it has been defined as part of our deposit of faith.  This does not mean you must understand the reasoning, but you must assent to it.”
Two points about this passage: 1) I’m not sure what you would call it other than black-or-white thinking - it’s a clear ultimatum, either you got it, or you don’t.  2) I have yet to openly advocate for women priests.  Does that mean I’m still adhering, or not?  Do my questions prevent me from adhering properly enough?  That is all unclear to me. 
Two further points: First, how did we get to this place where we can equate women’s ordination wth abortion?  What happened to venial sins vs. mortal sins?  Are we really going to say that all Church teachings are absolutely, 100% equal?  I understand completely if someone says they don’t believe in transubstantiation and they are then thrust out of the Church.  It’s one of the pillars of the faith.  Abortion is literal murder.  I get it.  I don’t see that we can equate women’s ordination with any of these things, and I understand even less why someone who disagrees would need to be thrust out of the Church.
Second, I will be accused of using this issue unfairly; however, I would say that the sex abuse scandal has, in fact, decreased my once total faith in the Church’s infallibility on faith and morals.  I have heard several Republicans use arguments like this: “How can you trust Obama to have ayn kind of moral compass when he is such an advocate for something as appalling as abortion.”  Well, while the organized hierarchy is certainly not an advocate, there is sufficient evidence that as an institution people were much more concerned with their hold on power and money than with the welfare of living, breathing human beings.  So, if you are going to ask me whether I believe the Church is infallible on matters of faith and morals, I would have to say “not sure.”
Finally, since these are my honest responses, do you suggest I stop taking Communion and going to attending Reconciliation regularly?  Would you suggest I become an Anglican or an Episcopalian?  How do we handle these clear questions?  My sense is that most people on this site would prefer their Church to be in a bubble and anyone who does not completely assent to everything simply go away.  I believe God’s umbrella’s a bit bigger than that.  So until my Bishop or Pope tells me to go away, I wil continue to celebrate the sacraments.  I’m sorry if folks don’t like it, but how else would you propose I get to “where I should want to be?”  I would also encourage you to check out a thread from SDG’s Redefining Marriage, Part 6.  There are some great examples of responses that are both encouraging of and challenging to people who still consider themselves to be in “the process” (aren’t we all, btw?) rather than already having “assented” completely.

Here are some general statements instead of going through every one of your comments piecemeal (though I have included a couple).  If there is something you would like me to address that is not in here, please ask it again.
    You accuse me of black-or-white thinking.  The conclusions themselves may be black-or-white, but are arrived at through a process.  Do you think rape is justifiable under any circumstances?  If not, then you have black-or-white thinking concerning it.  Is that a bad thing?
    Questions asked in faith do not mean you are not adhering, but disagreeing with what the Church authoritatively teaching does.  Jesus asks me to love my enemies.  If I say: “I will do as he asks, but why and how,” then I am adhering.  If I say: “I have thought about it and I disagree with Jesus, so I will not love my enemies,” then I am not adhering.  If I say: “Well, let me think about it because I could still go either way with loving my enemy,” then I am not adhering to Christ’s teaching.
    You ask in a few places how we can equate women’s ‘ordination’ with the Eucharist and abortion.  In abortion, likes are at stake; regarding women’s ordination, souls are at stake.  With a woman ‘priest’, people will believe they are receiving the Lord’s body or the grace of forgiveness through the sacrament of reconciliation when in reality, they are not.  They will believe they are in communion with Christ and His Church when they are not.  To downplay the importance of the issue of women’s ordination is to downplay the importance of Mass and the sacraments.  One of the points I am trying to make with this is that all Church teachings defined as doctrine are absolutely, 100% equal in regards to whether they are true or not.  Some are more necessary for salvation, but we do not get to pick and choose which ones we think are true.
    Like the Eucharist, the authority of the Church is a pillar of the faith, for the Church is the bulwark and foundation of truth.  If you are unsure if the Church is infallible regarding faith and morals, then your beliefs about transubstantiation and abortion are based only on your own conscience and conclusions.  What then differentiates you from Protestants and pro-choicer supporters who use those same measures for validity?
    “I would say that the sex abuse scandal has, in fact, decreased my once total faith in the Church’s infallibility on faith and morals.”
    That is an understandable human response.  Just remember that Jesus told the Jews in Mt 23:1-3 to do as the Pharisees said, though not what they did, because the Pharisees were in authority over the Jews.
    “Finally, since these are my honest responses, do you suggest I stop taking Communion and going to attending Reconciliation regularly?  Would you suggest I become an Anglican or an Episcopalian?  How do we handle these clear questions?”
    Let’s deal with the last question first.  The first step is to pray and ask Jesus to guide you in determining whether the Church is what it claims to be, which includes infallible regarding faith and morals.  If so, adhere to its teachings as you would if Christ came down and gave them Himself (because He has through His Church).  If not, then leave, not because we want to force you out, but because it would be foolish to belong to a church that Christ did not found since it could so easily stray into teaching heresy and things opposed to what God really asks of us.  Staying does not mean you stop questioning, it just means that the questions go from ‘Is this true?’ to ‘Why is it true?’
    Now, until you are sure the Church is infallible regarding faith and morals, then I would say the wise thing is to stop receiving Communion.  Why?  If the Church can be wrong regarding matters of faith and morals, it is very possible that wafer is not the Body of Christ, meaning you are an idolator for worshiping a piece of bread as God.  Why would you risk such a thing until you are sure?  If the Church is correct, you are not sinning by not receiving, and it will make the reception later all the more glorious, for it will be after an absence and in full communion with Christ’s Body through His Church.  I do not want you or anyone to leave the Church, but I do want people to think about the issue of the Church’s infallibility because the saving and losing of souls can hinge on it.  I’m just trying to help your ‘process’ while protecting the dignity of the Church founded by Christ.

dennis, thank you for your reasoned responses.  I will, sincerely, ponder them and have been.
“The first step is to pray and ask Jesus to guide you…”  Check.

“...in determining whether the Church is what it claims to be, which includes infallible regarding faith and morals.  If so, adhere to its teachings as you would if Christ came down and gave them Himself (because He has through His Church).  If not, then leave, not because we want to force you out, but because it would be foolish to belong to a church that Christ did not found since it could so easily stray into teaching heresy and things opposed to what God really asks of us.”

So, I should sit down with a check box for each Dogma with “yes” and “no” columns for each and if there are any “no” checks I leave?  If only I had your moral certitude.  That’s never been a strength of mine.  I’ve always found the notion that any human being, Pope or not, has sole access to all objective reality on faith and morals.  I accept that some are wiser, have more authority, have more experience, and a deeper spirituality.  I’m less sure about the idea of, “I have access to this and no one else does so you’ll just have to believe me.”  I guess I could say my faith lies with the Holy Spirit, that it works in ways that are mysterious to human beings, including human beings in high places at the Vatican.  It doesn’t mean they are always wrong, but it doesn’t mean they are always right, either.  And more than anything, it certainly doesn’t mean I know better than them.  I don’t find that any of the statements above are contradictory.
It is unfair for me to criticize your response since I asked the question about whether I should stop taking Communion.  However, my Spiritual Directors (more than one, over the years) have heard many of the same discussion points that you have and they have reached a different conclusion.  In fact, I have been strongly encouraged by several clergymen to remain steadfast and increase my participation in prayer and sacraments, and that makes sense to me.  It makes sense to me because Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is vital to one’s grace.  Belief or disbelief in women’s ordination?  Not so much.  I can follow your reasoning, but the conclusion that one’s “assent to” the issue of women’s ordination is equivalent to one’s acceptance of the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist makes little sense to me.  Jesus said, “Eat my flesh” and people walked away because it was difficult to understand.  He didn’t say, “matters on the structure of My organized Church are paramount.”  It is very Buddhist of you to say that all the teachings are interconnected (which is ironic, because I think I’m the more likely of the two of us to see some value in Buddhism - but I shouldn’t assume anything).  And while they may be interconnected in many ways, it seems to me that some, in fact, are more vital to salvation than others.  It doesn’t mean I blatantly blow off the ones that don’t make sense.  It also doesn’t mean I can’t say, “That does not make sense” when it doesn’t make sense.
Finally, I maintain the the narrow view of belief - “all must believe x, or they are not a true Church member” - is not helpful, at least not to a large segment of the population.  We could lay out Dogmas ad infinitum that people must believe or else they are out.  What’s the value of that?  You mentioned the Pharisees. When Jesus said do as they say, not as they do what they were guilty of was practicing the Law to the letter of the Law with very little internal Spiritual life.  That pretty much sums up my point about strict fundamentalism breaking down when it gets too rigid.  He didn’t come to abolish the Law, we certainly can’t do that.  But He also didn’t come to say the Law is the key to salvation.

OK, one more point… belief in contraception, belief in abortion, belief in the sacraments: those all come with an accompanying behavior, or lack thereof (i.e., “Do this” or “Don’t do that.”)  I can see the importance of holding those beliefs that so clearly affect one’s potentially sinful beahvior.  Unless I’m going to be like Fr. Roy and decide to become an outspoken proponent of Women’s Ordination (I’m not, yet anyway), I don’t see that there is a behavior that accompanies this belief.  Therefore, I don’t see that there is such a rush for a person such as myself to decide a firm stance on an issue like this.  Perhaps if the Inquisition starts back up (an example of fundamentalism gone awry), I will be forced to decide.  For now, I’m content to pray for more guidance on it while maintaining that I see little-to-no logic in the teaching.
Best to you, dennis.

Posted by jacques on Thursday, Aug 18, 2011 5:14 PM (EDT):“How can we deny them the right to follow a calling from God just because they are women?”
—My Reply—There is NO WAY God is calling women to be priests.  It is clear that Men are to be Priests (St. Peter), for they represent Christ and Christ was….a Man!  Mary is the mother of our Lord and the Church.  This was established during the passion of Christ (cruxifiction)  Women are to be mothers—and that is what Nuns represent: The mother Mary—and Mary was..a women!

Women wanting to be Priests or Men wanting to be Nuns is like gender-bending and is certainly unappropriate within the church. All this mixing of genders is idiotic and poeple need to realize their roles in life.  (and before anyone starts crying, I am not saying anything negative about things such as stay-home dads or police women: I am stating that Christ was a man and Mary was a women and they should be represented accordingly.)

Thank you for considering what I have written, Richard.  Going point by point makes our posts longer and longer, so I will try to cut back and address the core issues.

    Regarding receiving Communion, that is my opinion and I do not judge you for receiving it.  But many people (including spiritual directors and myself) can forget there are severe consequences for doing so unworthily.  But if you feel your spiritual directors are prayerful, holy people, then continue to listen to them.

    Instead of confirming every dogma, I would ask myself:
* Did Christ found a Church?  If yes…
* Would He leave it to its own devices, to determine for itself what is true?  If no…
* Would He prevent it from officially teaching error?  If yes…
* Do I accept the authority of that Church founded by Christ which is doctrinally free from error?  If yes…
* Is the Catholic Church that Church?

    I will leave the consequences of answering differently than above to you.  My first question is: If the authority of the Catholic Church does not have “sole access to all objective reality on faith and morals,” what basis do you have for believing in the Real Presence or that abortion is wrong?  You cannot rely on the Bible because its canon was determined by the Catholic Church.  You can rely on what your conscience tells you, but other people with clear consciences say the Eucharist is symbolic and abortion is the mother’s choice.  If the Church can be wrong about one doctrine, it can be wrong about any, including the Eucharist or abortion.

    If the Church does have this authority and surety, then you should be obedient to it despite the sins of some in power.  Going back to the Pharisees, you make my point by showing that even though Jesus was condemning the Pharisees for a lack of an interior spiritual life, He still says they are to be obeyed because they have been given authority.

    “That pretty much sums up my point about strict fundamentalism breaking down when it gets too rigid.”

    Among my ‘Catholic’ friends, one is an atheist, another does not believe Jesus was the Son of God, and a third does not believe in the Real Presence or inspiration of the Bible.  My second question: Are they Catholic?  If you impose any minimums on being Catholic, then you are being a strict fundamentalist who can be accused of being too rigid.  But if there are fundamentals for being Catholic, who gets to determine them if not the Church itself?  If it is up to the individual, then claiming to be Catholic is an empty phrase because it does not tell the person anything about what you believe or do.  When I say it to someone, they should be able to conclude that I go to Sunday Mass, believe in the Real Presence and other sacraments, and so on.  But that is no longer the case because people who believe things contrary to Church teaching also claim to be Catholic, leading astray those who are searching for the truth.  So you can maintain that “all must believe x, or they are not a true Church member” is not helpful, but please consider the consequences and souls that can be lost because of the confusion caused by those who do not follow the teaching of the Church they claim to belong to.

    “Unless I’m going to be like Fr. Roy and decide to become an outspoken proponent of Women’s Ordination (I’m not, yet anyway), I don’t see that there is a behavior that accompanies this belief.  Therefore, I don’t see that there is such a rush for a person such as myself to decide a firm stance on an issue like this.”

    Women’s ordination is an important issue because obedience is a form of behavior that distinctly affects our spiritual life.  Regarding my original questions, if you conclude the Church has the authority of Christ regarding faith and morals, then you should be obedient to it as if to Christ.  So, if the Church speaks for Christ through its doctrines, and you disagree and disobey the Church regarding one of them, you are disagreeing with and disobeying God.

    Continue to pray for guidance regarding women’s ordination, but I suggest focusing more of your prayer on the issue of the Church’s authority, because if you come to the same conclusions I did, all of the other issues become easier to understand and accept.  I will pray that you will get the moral certitude that I have, with the understanding that it is a gift from God.  It is a gift I received not because of a superior holiness, but because of my weakness.  God knows that without it, I would have gone far astray from His Son many years ago.

    Take care, Richard, and God bless!

Dear Sirs,

I am a special minister of the eucharist. There are also women ministers.
When one goes up to receive our blessed Lord in communion one doesn’t think ...  “Oh, I am receiving communion from a woman”. It’s a nonsense that women cannot be priests. It is what is in the mind of the person (male oe female) who celebrates as a priest. God is neither male nor female..  why should we make priests solely men.

Stephen Kamm

Hello Stephen,

The fact there are women ministers does not have any bearing on this argument because they are distributing communion, not consecrating the hosts, which is reserved to the ordained.  There are some people to whom the sex of the distributor matters.  I can say that I am a mother in my mind, but that does not make it the case, just as thinking I am called to be a priest does not make it necessarily true.  God’s non-sex did not prevent Him from instituting an all-male priesthood in the Old Testament, so that is also not an issue.  I can give you theological and historical reasons, as well as infallible statements, that support a male-only priesthood.  Is there any reason you can give that allows for women’s ordination and respects the God-given authority of the Church?

Dennis

Hi Dennis,
Because God instituted an all-male priesthood in the Old Testament does that necessarily mean he did not intend women to become priests?

Refer also post by Richard G on Wednesday, Aug 17, 2011 4:04 PM (EDT):
Circular logic, “a properly formed conscience would necessarily conform to Church teaching.”  I’ve never understood this argument.  If this is true, what’s the point of the conscience clause in the first place?  It essentially boils down to, “You must believe Church teaching to have a fully formed conscience; if you question church teaching, you obviously do not have a fully formed conscience.”  There’s no way out of the circle, and in essence no way to obtain a fully formed conscience because one will necessarily never question.

Stephen

“All the faithful, both clerical and lay, should be accorded a lawful freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought and freedom of expression.”
Gaudium et Spes, no 62; Canon Law no 212 § 3.

A 1976 report by the PontificalBiblical Commission, the Vatican’s top Scripture scholars, concluded that there is no valid case to be made against the ordination of women from the Scriptures. In the Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian and other Christian churches, God’s call of women to the priesthood is affirmed and women are ordained. Why not in the Catholic church?

In Old Testament times women were definitely second-rank in religion. Since women were not circumcised, they did not personally become members of the Covenant. They could not present their own sacrifices. They were always subject to men, also in religious matters.
 
Jesus Christ changed all that.
Each woman who is baptised becomes another Christ, just as a man is.
“All who are baptised in Christ, have put on Christ.There is no longer any discrimination between Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female.” Galatians 3,28
Every baptised woman shares fully in Christ’s priesthood, kingship and prophetic mission. Baptism implies a fundamental openness to all the sacraments, including the ministerial priesthood.

Hi, Stephen.

“Because God instituted an all-male priesthood in the Old Testament does that necessarily mean he did not intend women to become priests?”

God obviously did not intend to have women priests in the Old Testament, probably as another way to distinguish it from all the surrounding religions that did have priestesses.  As for the New Testament, if Jesus intended to have women priests, why did He not call any of them?

Regarding Richard’s circular logic argument, it is groundless.  First, he changes ‘properly formed’ to ‘fully formed’, though they are different.  Then he makes an assumption that questioning implies dissent, though they are also different.

Dennis

Hi, Stephen.

“Because God instituted an all-male priesthood in the Old Testament does that necessarily mean he did not intend women to become priests?”

God obviously did not intend to have women priests in the Old Testament, probably as another way to distinguish it from all the surrounding religions that did have priestesses.  As for the New Testament, if Jesus intended to have women priests, why did He not call any of them?

Regarding Richard’s circular logic argument, it is groundless.  First, he changes ‘properly formed’ to ‘fully formed’, though they are different.  Then he makes an assumption that questioning implies dissent, though they are also different.
——————————————————————————

““All the faithful, both clerical and lay, should be accorded a lawful freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought and freedom of expression.”
Gaudium et Spes, no 62; Canon Law no 212 § 3.”

You forgot some parts…

“Furthermore, theologians, within the requirements and methods proper to theology, are invited to seek continually for more suitable ways of communicating doctrine to the men of their times; for the deposit of Faith or the truths are one thing and the manner in which they are enunciated, in the same meaning and understanding, is another.” - Gaudium et Spes, 62

So there is a difference between the deposit of Faith and expressing what is in the deposit.  They are not to try to change doctrine (of which an all-male priesthood is part), but find better ways of explaining it.

And to finish your quote:

“...with humility and fortitude in those matters on which they enjoy competence.” - Gaudium et Spes, 62

Could this humility be pertaining to the Church’s doctrine?  Gaudium et Spes makes the point that the mission is to enhance the teaching of doctrine so that it is more understandable in today’s world, not change it.

Also, do you find it hypocritical to deny the authority of the Church and then try to rely on that authority through an encyclical, but at the same time ignoring other encyclicals?
—————————————————————————

“A 1976 report by the PontificalBiblical Commission, the Vatican’s top Scripture scholars, concluded that there is no valid case to be made against the ordination of women from the Scriptures. In the Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian and other Christian churches, God’s call of women to the priesthood is affirmed and women are ordained. Why not in the Catholic church?”

You neglected to mention that they did not find anything in Scripture in favor of ordaining women, as well as the fact they pointed out that the first Christian communities were always directed by men exercising the apostolic power.  Also, you are weighing the conclusion of a commission versus the infallible teaching authority of the pope speaking as the Vicar of Christ regarding a belief to be held by all Catholics.  Uh, pope wins.

As for the other denominations, their orders are not valid, so they are not truly ordained.  Plus, many do not believe the Eucharist is the Body of Christ, so we should probably get our act together and recognize that as well, right?
————————————————————————

“In Old Testament times women were definitely second-rank in religion. Since women were not circumcised, they did not personally become members of the Covenant. They could not present their own sacrifices. They were always subject to men, also in religious matters.”

God constituted the chosen people as “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”  Yet, He set aside one of the twelve tribes for liturgical service.  Did this make all of the other tribes second-rank?  If so, then God does not have a problem with it, so why do you?  If not, then hopefully you can see that a male-only priesthood does not make women second-rank as well.  Also, women were not directly part of the covenant, but were indirectly part of it due to the responsibility of their husbands to ensure their families followed the same rules and laws that the husband was asked to.  This is very similar to Ephesians 5 where the wives are to be subordinate to the husband and the husband is to love his wife.  In other words, she is to trust that what he does is best for everyone, and he is to do what is best for everyone.  So we see different roles given in both the Old and New Testaments.
——————————————————————-

“Each woman who is baptised becomes another Christ, just as a man is.
‘All who are baptised in Christ, have put on Christ.There is no longer any discrimination between Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female.’ Galatians 3,28
Baptism implies a fundamental openness to all the sacraments, including the ministerial priesthood.”

I suggest doing more research on how the Church interprets the verse.  As for your last statement, that is a personal, fallible interpretation that is in disagreement with the teaching authority of the Church.

All of this being said, my job has started back up, so I will not have the time to refute what you post.  I am making it so that I no longer get e-mail confirmations regarding this post.  I pray that you will think about what it means if the Church is wrong about this issue.  If it is wrong about this, it can be wrong about any doctrine, making it pointless, dangerous, and a little silly to want to be Catholic.

Dennis

when I read the judgementalism, sexism, bigotry and downright hate in these comments, I finally realize what I have been thinking for a long time.  If you people represent Catholicism, I want no part of it.

The church is in crisis, wake up people.  Change or die.  The church will fail if you continue like this

There used to be about 150 young men joining seminaries in Ireland each year.  In 2012, there are 16.  MOST Catholics in America don’t go to church regularly.  The church is FAILING to lead it’s people

The Vatican’s punishment to the American nuns is more severe than the punishment to bishops and priests that raped children.  This is wrong!

You are in my prayers.

I believe, just as people were able to move past believing marriage between whites and blacks was against God’s plan, they will figure out that women can be priests as well.

And yes, I’m pro-life.  My opinion on the ordination of women has nothing to do with that.  Why would it?  Oh, right, because you think we should BLINDLY, STUPIDLY follow everything we are told.

St Joan of Arc, St Mary Ward were excommunicated during their lives.  Many Saints defied the church or the Pope

From St Thomas Aquinas…
“It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 104, A. 5)

Would the pedophile priest scandal been as large as it was if we had women priest?  I sincerely doubt women priest would have participated in the subsequent cover-up and shuffling of these child abusers.