Remember my last post, where I mentioned that the Vatican and the Pope aren't really getting my full respect (not that they'd care) as truthful or worthy of respect? Basically, it came about because of two recent articles I read - the first about the Pope and condoms - as "exacerbating the problem of AIDS" and secondly because of an article in Ms. magazine. called Vatican Justice. I'll post the article here and given the fact that people might find Ms. biased because of its feminist stance, I'll also link to articles that support Ms. from different sources.
NATIONAL NEWS | winter 2009
Vatican Justice
Pedophile priests can stay in the Church, but priests who ordain women may be excommunicated
By Bill Frogameni
WHAT HAPPENS IF A Catholic priest molests children?
Usually, he’s protected by the Church hierarchy. Maybe he’ll eventually have his parish or diocese taken away, or be switched to another one—often after years of serial abuse. But there’s a good chance he’ll stay in the Church.
So what happens if a Catholic priest publicly supports ordaining women? Well, then he’s excommunicated on the double.
“Nearly 5,000 Catholic priests [in the U.S.] have sexually abused over 12,000 Catholic children…but they were not excommunicated,” says Father Roy Bourgeois, who faced the latter scenario after helping celebrate what the Vatican considers to be an illegitimate ordination mass in August 2008. Bourgeois, a Vietnam veteran with a Purple Heart who became a prominent peace activist, stood with the trailblazers of the female ordination movement in Lexington, Ky., to make Janice Sevre-Duszynska a Catholic priest.
For thumbing his nose at one of the most sacred tenets of the conservative hierarchy—that only men are worthy of the priesthood—Bourgeois was swiftly rebuked by the Vatican in a letter two months later, telling him he had 30 days to renounce his actions or face excommunication.
After his deadline passed without a definitive word, Bourgeois told Ms. that his heart wouldn’t allow him to cave in to the Vatican. “Deeper than the hurt, the sadness, there’s a peace that comes from knowing I followed my conscience in addressing this great injustice,” he said.
Still, Bourgeois wanted to question the Pope: “Who are we as men to say that our call to the priesthood is valid, but yours as women is not?” Given that 64 percent of American Catholics in a 2005 AP/Ipsos poll agreed that women should be ordained, they might ask the pope the same thing. But the Vatican, despite parish closings across America and a 30 percent decline in priests between 1965 and 2000, doesn’t seem ready for that question.
“The church believes that the intent of Jesus’ founding of the priesthood is that it was reserved for men,” explained Sister Mary Anne Walsh, spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. But, speaking for the group Roman Catholic Womenpriests, Bridget Mary Meehan, herself ordained in 2006 and subsequently excommunicated, disputes that teaching. “Jesus never ordained anyone,” says Meehan. “And in the tradition, women were ordained deacons, priests and bishops for the first 1,200 years.”
The Vatican’s strong response to Bourgeois’ action stands in stark contrast to its overwhelming failure to punish molesters. Even a homicidal priest, Father Gerald Robinson, who was convicted in 2006 of the satanicritualistic murder of a 71-year-old nun in an Ohio chapel (see “The Nun’s Story,” Summer 2006), has not been excommunicated. Though Robinson to date has spent more than two and a half years in prison and lost an appeal, he still remains a priest, albeit one quietly retired by his bishop.
Walsh’s explanation: As heinous as the crime was, the Church doesn’t excommunicate for murder.
The Vatican may soon have further explaining to do, this time in a U.S. courtroom. A federal appeals court ruled in late November that a lawsuit arising in Kentucky over the Vatican’s negligence in dealing with sexual abuse could proceed—the first time a court that high has recognized the Holy See’s potential liability in this arena.
One of the key pieces of evidence in the lawsuit? A 1962 memo, approved by Pope John XXIII, directing Catholic bishops to keep silent about sex-abuse claims.
Photo by Jenny Warbug
Now, I also checked for validation: there's an article from Catholic News Service about the ex-communication of Bourgeois.
www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805758.htm
It was hard to find anything about the priests that abused children and whether they were ex-communicated separate from other issues. But if anyone wants to look further, that'd be fine.
12 comments:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201sbs.asp
Very interesting; although it still doesn't really explain why promoting a belief for equality (I imagine a priest is well-educated in the church's stand on why women can't be priests, etc. and has therefore had the education to refute this, at least in his own mind) is on par with child molestation, rape, and/or murder. So does this mean the Vatican/church believes that promoting what you believe to be right - even believing it to be god's will (ie, women as priests) is ex-communicable but if you actually molest/rape/murder someone, that's NOT worse?
Basically, I guess I'm asking - the Vatican believes that freedom of speech and arguing for something the Church finds wrong (women priests) is excommunicable - but if you're a murdering molester, than it's perfectly acceptable to condone it (voicelessly, perhaps under the radar) by protecting them and NOT excommunicating them - is that the basic gist of it?
First... excommunication is something that one does to himself. The Church may proclaim that someone is excommunicated but she hasn't actually excommunicated the person. The person has done that to him/herself.
Secondly, it looks to me like the Church did not "excommunicate" the priest because he ARGUED that women should be priests... they excommunicated the priest because he attended her "ordination" which makes no sense because there isn't a Catholic Bishop in the US who has the faculties to ordain a woman so I don't even understand how that's possible. Anyhoo... his excommunication wasn't due to his beliefs... it was due to his public actions.
Thirdly, the Church screwed up letting so many priest fly under the radar when they were accused of or charged with molestation. However, there have been great strides to make sure this doesn't happen anymore. And SIN itself does not constitute excommunication or else there'd be no Catholics in the Church anymore.
Lastly, I don't understand why you, a person who has obviously decided that the Catholic Church is no longer your home (even though it always will be), insist upon bashing her all the time. Are you trying to convince others to leave the Church? Are you trying to reform the Church with your writings? What do you hope to gain by constantly insulting the Catholic Church, her members and her Pope?
Well, I don't think of it as bashing. And I don't really intend for others to leave..but I also don't think that you have to "belong" to an entity to change that entity if you think it's unfair, unlawful, or wrong. In fact, being on the outside sometimes gives a person clarity. Perhaps bring it to people's attention? Ask questions and find information?
And, did the priest merely attend the "ordination" which wasn't valid, obviously, therefore using his actions as a form of speech supporting it? Or did he perform the "ordination?"
Also, aren't murder, molestation, and rape all "public actions" not just sin? How is supporting or attending an ordination that isn't valid MORE sinful (if that's even how to term it)) than other sinful actions. What exactly in that is more excommunicable than the others?
I guess I'm wondering what the difference is, and how it's not some form of hypocrisy or wrong doing by the priest?
Also, by talking about these things, whether I'm a catholic or not, doesn't that lead to openness and education to anyone who listens, especially if a catholic who understands things better can explain it rationally?
And, as someone who wants to make society better, I like to question things in society I think are screwed up, whether that's the catholic church or patriarchy, or inequality, or equal wages, or education.....
Also, some things just really make me mad. I figure I'll blog about them and get it out of my system, since the only one I really rant to about it would be one or two close friends, and I know they probably get sick of it. So consider it also a clearing of my mind!
Can I just say that the entire article is really kind of ridiculous because comparing priests who molest to priests who promote making women priests is like comparing oranges and caterpillars. They are two subjects that are not at all related or comparable and if Ms. Magazine insists upon insulting an institution that it obviously does not understand, the least it could do is insult it in two separate articles that actually make some sort of sense.
Okay... now back to the topic at hand:
Pretty much everything that you could ever want to know about Excommunication is here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
If you scroll halfway down to the heading "Excommunications specially reserved to the Pope" you will find the beginning of a list of reasons why people become excommunicated.
Okay, working this out here...
..So if you believe or teach "dogma" against the church (heresy) then you're excommunicated. (number 1) and that explains the priest who supports ordination of women.
So then, the priest who murdered the nun - why wasn't he excommunicated because of number 2? Technically, this is rhetorical, since we really have no understanding of the reasons behind each particular excommunication case or lack thereof.
As for comparing the two - it's not a true comparison, exactly...it's questioning (and pointing out to interested people) WHY one (supporting ordination) is WORSE than another (murder, rape, molestation of children) - at least in appearances
In other words, the article is pointing out that the church will excommunciate you if you support or go against a church teaching - which apparently does NOT include murder or rape as horrible (at least of people who are NOT "religious" ie. nuns, other priests, bishops (if I read the ex-communication reasons correctly)- or dogma - like who can be a priests.
I think the author was asking or bringing others to ask the rhetorical question: what kind of church IS this that to all appearances squashes free speech (of course, it's not a govt. exactly, so it's slightly different) and questioning of dogma but continues to support (at least in a hands-off kind of way) murder, rape, and molestation?
Anyone else want to chime in here - maybe I'm not getting something? Or there are other viewpoints
OK, I am only commenting because Kathleen asked for a differing perspective. I admit I am not, nor have I ever been Catholic and I don't know much about its innermost workings. So this is all said by someone with no stake in this argument.
But I read a little about excommunication on that website you provided Kristi, and it doesn't make that much sense to me. I am guessing excommunication only occurs when a Catholic commits an offense that goes directly against the dogma of the church. So while murder and molestation are criminal, they aren't punishable by excommunication, because they are not acts that directly break a tenet of the faith? It's just a sin. I don't know if that makes sense, but am I close?
So perhaps we should remove the question of excommunication out of the equation all together. Does it really matter if the priests weren't excommunicated? Isn't the main problem here that the molestation was covered up? What has happened not just with those who committed the crimes but with those that helped cover it up? How have they been held accountable?
I am also curious where Jesus taught specifically that women can't be priests? That seems like a flimsy excuse. And I do think that it is wrong to excommunicate someone for just attending the ordainment of a woman. It just makes the Catholic Church look petty and archaic, at least to this outsider.
And another question. What do Catholics in general think about the Pope reinstating the bishop who denies the Holocaust?
Oh, and I also googled the name of the guy who wrote the article and it seems he has written quite a lot about the Catholic Church (especially corruption within), and not exclusively for Ms. Magazine. Though he may have a bit of an agenda I don't think it is fair to accuse him of not knowing what he is talking about just because you happen to disagree with what he is saying.
Kathleen,
First you have a semi-valid point and can see why you have an issue and misunderstanding with this. The Church did make mistakes and handeling the sexual abuse that took place. While the Church is a Divine insitution guided by the Holy Spirit it is made up of men who make mistakes. The situation was not initially handled correctly but it is now trying to be fixed.
The difference between the sex abuse scandle and ordination of women leading to excommunication is this. A Priest who commits the horrible atrocity of molesting a child is sick. He has a problem and he needs counseling and it needs to be fixed. It is an issue of struggling with sin not doctrine. For example I believe and hold to all the moral teachings of the Church but I don't live them out perfectly because I am a fallen human being and struggle. Just because I sin doesn't mean I need to be excommunicated. I need confession and healing. Which is what these Priests need. Counseiling and help to overcome these temptations
Ordaining women is a blatant rejection of Church teaching. It doesn't have to do with sin but with questioning what the Church teaches. I may say for example believe the Church's teaching on pre-marital sex but fall in that area. I'm remoreseful and move on. Choosing to ordain women is a flat out rejection. It shoes disagreement. While the other I can agree but still fall in the area because of my sinfulness.
I hope that makes some sense. I won't comment on why the Church thinks ordaining women is wrong for now but if you would like me to I would be more than happy to comment on that as well.
Jose,,,
That's actually really helpful and Kristi I think you tried to get this point across as well. I also think it kind of makes sense, at least from church law perspectives.
Of course, that doesn't make it right in my eyes - but thank you for explaining it in such a way - cause that does really help.
I do have the question though - were there ever people ex-communicated by the church because of beliefs they held that went against church teaching - that then changed or was adjusted? Have there been beliefs that have changed or been adjusted? And if so, how do you know NOW that what this particular priest is saying is going to always be the case - and shouldn't the church at least listen; even if it doesn't change anything.
I guess I'm just sort of offended (not personally as a Catholic, but in general) because it seems like his (the priests) freedom of conscience and freedom of speech are sort of at stake - I don't know the whole story, just a few articles; but just speaking out about something like that or supporting it doesn't seem enough for something like ex-communication (and here it's just me as an outsider) especially considering the lack of priests the church has (especially good ones) and from what I understood to be a church who believes in people being able to form their own moral conscience.
No people have never been excommunicated for that because Church teaching has never changed in the last 2000 years. Certain disciplines about the way things are done have changed but teaching on doctrine has never changed. There has been development as in having to use principles to explain newer modern moral issues that have arisen in modern times but the doctrine has never changed. That is the beauty of the Church it has been the same or 2000 years. That is what gives it its stability in my opinion.
The Church does allow for proper formation of conscience. But that's the problem formation of conscience doesn't mean you form it in whatever way you want. It means you form it properly. For us who believe in the Catholic Church we believe their is one universal truth and a properly formed conscience will come to that conclusion. It is one thing to question and educate yourself it is another to blatantly reject and do something that goes against the Church. By the time you are a Priest you should have figured these things out. If you haven't then you should have waited to be Ordained. Now that is either his fault or the fault of the diocese. And while there maybe a shortage in certain areas the Church would rather have a shortage and have all their Priests be solid and good than have an abundance of mediocre and bad ones.
Post a Comment