• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Sad End of the Priestly Ministry of Mr. Roy Bourgeois

spanky

spanky

Banned
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
5,431
Reaction score
979
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Sad End of the Priestly Ministry of Mr. Roy Bourgeois - U.s. - Catholic Online

As a priest during 2008, Mr. Bourgeois participated in the invalid ordination of a woman and a simulated Mass in Lexington, Kentucky. With patience, the Holy See and the Maryknoll Society have encouraged his reconciliation with the Catholic Church.

Instead, Mr. Bourgeois chose to campaign against the teachings of the Catholic Church in secular and non-Catholic venues. This was done without the permission of the local U.S. Catholic Bishops and while ignoring the sensitivities of the faithful across the country. Disobedience and preaching against the teaching of the Catholic Church about women's ordination led to his excommunication, dismissal and laicization.
Click to expand...

Assimilate or DIE!

borg.jpg
 
thank you for the post. i did not realize someone with such balls and genuine convictions remained within the catholic church
this commenter (Sue) made excellent observations:
I am curious how someone can engage in "robust discussion" if we cannot advocate positions that oppose teachings of the Catholic Church. That seems like "robust discussion" where the church tells us what we can and cannot say. This appears to be the problem that Roy Bourgeois encountered. He was not permitted to preach what he sees as right. If a church leader cannot speak truth to power, then the church loses one of its most significant voices that may advocate renewal and improvement. When people are told what to think and what to say, then the church becomes ossified and dogmatic and unable to change when change would make the church better. I admire and respect the Catholic Church for its stances against poverty and hunger, for environmental preservation, against unjust war, and against the death penalty. I think we need a strong and vibrant church. By kicking out dissenters like Roy Bourgeois, the church weakens itself and makes itself less vibrant and less meaningful for people. The church teaches that we must listen to conscience. Roy Bourgeois listened to his conscience, followed what he thought God was telling him, and got kicked out of his position in the church for it. It's a sad day for the church. If the church keeps kicking out the best leaders, the church will wither and die away.
Click to expand...
 
There is a minority tradition of brave Catholic priests speaking out against the Vatican and speaking up for what's right. Liberation theologians are a case in point. Bourgeois is in that tradition.
 
What you call "brave" is also disobedient. From the OP's link:

Disobedience and preaching against the teaching of the Catholic Church about women's ordination led to his excommunication, dismissal and laicization. Then Fr. Bourgeois engaged in an obstinate crusade which involved public and direct defiance of the Holy See and a repudiation of the unbroken teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church concerning sacred ordination.

The Sad End of the Priestly Ministry of Mr. Roy Bourgeois - U.s. - Catholic Online

This is terribly sad, and I hope that Mr. Bourgeois will eventually reconcile himself or at least find a denomination that suits him.
 
rocket88 said:
As much as I disagree with the church's stance on women, I don't think they're in the wrong here. If I went and disagreed with the core business principles of my employer, I'd get fired too. They can make their own decisions about who can be a priest.

That said, they're making a mistake. But that's not my problem.
Click to expand...

So you believe being a Christian is like being an employee? I'd be more compelled if you equated them to being customers buying a product.

Which is, in the end, what they're doing.
 
Remember the Galileo.
 
nota bene said:
What you call "brave" is also disobedient. From the OP's link:

Disobedience and preaching against the teaching of the Catholic Church about women's ordination led to his excommunication, dismissal and laicization. Then Fr. Bourgeois engaged in an obstinate crusade which involved public and direct defiance of the Holy See and a repudiation of the unbroken teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church concerning sacred ordination.

The Sad End of the Priestly Ministry of Mr. Roy Bourgeois - U.s. - Catholic Online

This is terribly sad, and I hope that Mr. Bourgeois will eventually reconcile himself or at least find a denomination that suits him.
Click to expand...

Only disobedient in the RCC view, which is their very slanted view of the world.

There needs to be more Catholics who stand up to the RCC's 'good old boys' method of governance.
 
SMTA said:
Only disobedient in the RCC view, which is their very slanted view of the world.

There needs to be more Catholics who stand up to the RCC's 'good old boys' method of governance.
Click to expand...

Just FYI, whether you like the RC view or not, it is what it is. The Church is implacable re the ordination of women, which is what this is about, and again, whether you approve or not. Those who are ordained as priests are required to follow the rules, and this now defrocked priest publicly and obstinately preached against those rules.

As I've said, perhaps he will find a denomination that better suits his personal beliefs. In the meantime, he knew what he was doing/saying and what the consequences are, and he has now faced them.
 
spanky said:
He knew the earth wasn't flat.:lol:
Click to expand...

Ummm...so did the church. Had nothing to do with flat earth. Galileo was known for his theories on motion and the fact that the earth was not the center of our solar system. :roll:
 
nota bene said:
Just FYI, whether you like the RC view or not, it is what it is. The Church is implacable re the ordination of women, which is what this is about, and again, whether you approve or not. Those who are ordained as priests are required to follow the rules, and this now defrocked priest publicly and obstinately preached against those rules.

As I've said, perhaps he will find a denomination that better suits his personal beliefs. In the meantime, he knew what he was doing/saying and what the consequences are, and he has now faced them.
Click to expand...

The rules against women being priests need to change.
Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, Phd., Fordham University Theologist speaks perfectly on the subject:

let it be stated as plainly as possible that Jesus never ordained twelve men, thus setting up an all-male priesthood. Such an interpretation is an anachronism projected backward onto the Gospels in the light of later development. In truth, biblical scholarship demonstrates that Jesus never ordained anyone; that a distinction must be made between the Twelve (who had no long-term successors), the apostles, and the disciples; and that women were among the most active and faithful of apostles and disciples. Furthermore, even if Jesus did ordain twelve men, this is no warrant for the church not to ordain women. The Spirit guides the church to do many things that Jesus did not, according to the needs of the gospel in the course of history.

Regarding the second, history is replete with examples of unbroken tradition -breaking due to the moral sensibilities of believers, the insights of critical thinkers, and careful searching on the part of the teaching office, all converging in the context of cultural change. At one time it was official church teaching that it was unlawful for married couples to take pleasure in the marital act; that killing infidels was a way to salvation; that taking interest on a loan was forbidden; that slavery was permissible; that discrimination against Jewish people was legitimate; that biblical scholars could not use historical critical methods on Scripture texts.

Regarding the third, let it be plainly stated that women are icons of Christ, imago Christi, in every essential way. There is a natural resemblance between women and Jesus Christ in terms of a common humanity and participation in divine grace. To teach otherwise is a pernicious error that vitiates the power of baptism. The naive physicalism that reduces resembling Christ to being male is so deviant from Scripture and so theologically distorted as to be dangerous to the faith itself.
Click to expand...
Sr. Elizabeth A. Johnson, Phd.

Elizabeth A. Johnson's Assessment of ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’
 
Johnson is a radical feminist heretic who's the author of She Who Is. From what I've read, the Church has been very patient and tolerant with her, but perhaps she is another who needs to find a denomination more in line with her beliefs. If she switched to Episcopalian, she could even be an American bishop.
 
SMTA said:
Only disobedient in the RCC view, which is their very slanted view of the world.

There needs to be more Catholics who stand up to the RCC's 'good old boys' method of governance.
Click to expand...

Their organization, their rules.

I'm not a Catholic myself, but I fully recognize the right of the Catholic church, as with any other religious organization, to establish for itself, by methods of its own choosing, what its doctrines, practices, and policies will be, and to require its members and especially its official representatives to comply therewith.

Whether you agree with any particular doctrines or practices, or whether you think they are wrong and reflect a “very slanted view of the world”, and their method of establishing these doctrines and practices as a “‘good old boys’ method of governance” is irrelevant. You have no standing to dictate to the Catholic church anything about its doctrines, practices, or method of governance.

Mr. Bourgeois is certainly free to believe what he will, and to appropriately express his beliefs. But if he cannot agree with and accept the doctrines and practices of the Catholic church, then it makes no sense for him to continue to be a member thereof, and it certainly makes no sense for him to be acting as an official representative thereof. The Catholic church was entirely within his rights to sever its ties to him, and if he truly had any integrity, then he would have done so himself well before it came to this.
 
So, here is the crux of the matter. The Roman Catholic church is a top down faith, I should know as I am one, change does not happen quickly and must be convened through the council and the pope through church doctrine. Now, people may not like that but it is the rule, the Roman Catholic church has changed doctrine in the past, such as Pope John Paul II bridging the gap between Judaism, Islam, and other religions not affiliated with Christianity. The church convenes to examine where the faith is, if a case can be made for the end of celibacy rules for priests/nuns or to ordain female priests the council will hear the arguments and make a decision, but that is protocol.

The problem with arguing against the church in certain fashions is a violation of protocol. One doesn't win favor with cardinals, bishops, and the pope by calling out the church in a harsh manner, rather, like many other scholars our theologians appreciate calm and rational discourse. It's just the reality of my faith.
 
madman said:
AKA picking and choosing the hate/sexism that you agree with
Click to expand...

No, sir. I'm neither a "hater" nor a sexist. I'm not even a name-caller, and it's a shame you can't say the same and that rather than reason, you're able only to offer unimaginative personal attack.
 
Is there a single logical, science based based reason for gender inequalities within the church system?
 
shlunka said:
Is there a single logical, science based based reason for gender inequalities within the church system?
Click to expand...
Scripture and symbolism. The disciples were all male.
 
I suppose, though it strikes me as being much more likely that it was simply prejudices back in those times that were written into Biblical scriptures.
 
The practical point here is that the "club" has set its own rules. Don't want to join? Don't. Reject the rules? Fine. But don't expect to keep your job as an "officer" if you publicly and obstinately rail against the rules and persistently disobey them.
 
nota bene said:
No, sir. I'm neither a "hater" nor a sexist. I'm not even a name-caller, and it's a shame you can't say the same and that rather than reason, you're able only to offer unimaginative personal attack.
Click to expand...


Well, when you have a religion that dictates what you have to believe in and that belief involves sexism or hatred, then you to are labeled that.
 
madman said:
Well, when you have a religion that dictates what you have to believe in and that belief involves sexism or hatred, then you to are labeled that.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with hate or sexism. It has to do with biblical tradition as laid down by those who started and to this day maintain the church. If you don't agree, that's fine. Your bigoted views on this particular incident is no reason for the hate you yourself seem to be spewing.
 
I don't see the problem here. A priest disobeys the rules set by his superiors, and they remove him from his position for said disobedience. Nobody twisted his arm to become a priest, he volunteered for it. He should have done the honorable thing and left the church voluntarily to pursue a position more appropriate to his shift in religious ideology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom