Political Insider

By Cassie

November 15, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

If we can change the blood into wine then maybe ordaining women is a good idea. that’s disgusting, isn’t it? See? you cant mess with dogma or liturgy, or ecumenical stuff.

Excommunicate this Maryknoll idiot and then pray his soul burns in purgatory for 700 billion years till he gets congress to bail him out.

By Denise

November 15, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

Cassie,

Praying that anyone’s soul burns anywhere is not how we Catholics operate. The fact of the matter is that the Church does change its stance on issues from time to time. Slavery is an obvious example but there are others, such as the celibate priesthood.

The Church usually will not excommunicate anyone unless it is felt that there is nothing else to be done with the person. After all, once someone is excommunicated, there is nothing else the Church can do to motivate that person to change his or her ways.

It is sad that women cannot be ordained. There is a real need for priests in this country. Many parishes, like mine, do not even have a priest and have to share with those who do.

By realdiculous

November 15, 2008 11:31 PM | Link to this

whoop de doo, when will the natzi pope excommunicate the child molesting priests and their enablers, women in the priesthood is a no go, that would shed light on their priests who hunt young boys

By Wanda Wells

November 16, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

“…The last major demonstration occurred two years ago, attracting an estimated 10,000 protesters.”

Columbus, Georgia is just 90min. southeast of Atlanta. The AJC should get it facts straight. The ANNUAL November Vigil at the gates of Fort Benning drew 20,000 people in 2007 and the 2008 Vigil is taking place from November 21-23, 2008.

By Todd

November 17, 2008 4:31 AM | Link to this

Denise, Yes, the Church can change its stance on certain things. However, celibacy for the priesthood, abstinence from meat on all Fridays—these are matters of discipline, and not of doctrine. The male-only priesthood is doctrine, and as such, in the words of John Paul II, must be held definitively by the faithful. It cannot be changed, period. Please do not view this as “sad.” It in no way diminishes the role of women in the church. The problem is that radical feminists (and I have no reason to think you are one) all too often view the male-only priesthood as a stepping-stone to authority, but it is, in point of fact, a role of servitude. Even the pope is the “servant of the servants of God.” Let us pray for more vocations.

By Denise

November 17, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this

Todd,

There are only a few things in our faith which are infallibly taught and this isn’t one of them. You are confusing doctrine with dogma. Pope John-Paul II never spoke ex cathedra on this matter. That said, I don’t think that we will see women ordained during our lifetimes.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that few young people are willing to join the clergy—and we have lost many of our priests to the Anglicans (something that is a source of much humor among Charlestonian Episcopalians, I can tell you).

Personally, I am a bit fed up with not having a parish priest and with the related issues of fewer and fewer Mass times, etc. Part of that surely has to do with the fact that that Georgia isn’t exactly a hotbed of Catholicism but still, there is an obvious problem here and it would be nice if someone took it seriously.

By word to ur moma

November 17, 2008 5:34 PM | Link to this

why must different religions divide us based on dogma, truly nobody knows whose religion is correct, to speak as if your religion has all the answers is a crock, I wish all the Worlds religions would deal in philosophical debate as opposed to right/wrong, my guess if there is a higher power/creator are imagination/thoughts are well short of the entities magnificence can’t we all just get along and quit killing/judging in the name of God

By CA

November 19, 2008 1:08 AM | Link to this

This isn’t an “issue” to be changed, protested or voted on. God designed different people for different things. Should men protest because they can’t give birth? No that would be absurd. you cannot treat spiritual matters like you would political. It is a choice to be a Christian or a Catholic. With that choice comes following Christianity’s rules. Christians do have a rule book. It’s called the bible and saying there aren’t any absolutes is an absolute itself. This Priest has “excommunicated” himself through his actions. The bible says we are all sinners needing redemption. That is why Jesus died for our sins, to pay our price. We should be giving thanks to Jesus and worshiping him not using the church for out political agendas.

By burt bacharach

November 19, 2008 1:17 AM | Link to this

jesus h christ was a child molestin’ catholic priest

By Denise

November 19, 2008 8:10 PM | Link to this

CA,

It’s obvious that you’re a Protestant. Before commenting on our Catholic faith, you might want to learn a little about it.

By GHP

November 20, 2008 1:27 AM | Link to this

Too much ink is being spilt on Fr. Bourgeois’ protests at Ft. Benning — which is a red herring. Fr. Bourgeois is not accused of being a 60s-era peace-nic, but of stubbornly going against our rules. We need more priests concerned about souls — not social activists.

If he doesn’t want to be Catholic — that is — if he doesn’t want to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Pope, well …. he can go to some other religion that fits his personal vision.

Fr. Bourgeois deserves to be laicized for his blatant insubordination. He was in the army — same thing: you don’t publicly stand against your commander unless you (1) have the law on your side, or (2) you want to be relieved of command.

By GHP

November 20, 2008 1:33 AM | Link to this

Too much ink is being spilt on Fr. Bourgeois’ protests at Ft. Benning — which is a red herring. Fr. Bourgeois is not accused of being a 60s-era peace-nic, but of stubbornly going against our rules. We need more priests concerned about souls — not social activists.

If he doesn’t want to be Catholic — that is — if he doesn’t want to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Pope, well …. he can go to some other religion that fits his personal vision.

Fr. Bourgeois deserves to be laicized for his blatant insubordination. He was in the army — same thing: you don’t publicly stand against your commander unless you (1) have the law on your side, or (2) you want to be relieved of command.

By Mary-Lee Lutz

November 26, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this

“We need more priests concerned about souls — not social activists.”

That is the crux of the problem with the Catholic Church. Thank you for tating it so clearly.

By MH

December 14, 2008 9:30 PM | Link to this

First, Fr. Roy is a priest, not a brother. Small editorial point, but it’s who he is. He has been an army officer, decorated for bravery. He has been a Maryknoll missionary, serving the poorest of the poor. The remark about being concerned about souls rather than social activism misses the point entirely. Social justice is about souls. Think about slavery, women’s suffrage, civil rights, poverty, hunger, all in our country’s recent history. There are injustices in the world, and without activists who care enough to put themselves on the line, injustice is tolerated, even ignored. Women were foundational in the early church, and there is evidence that women were legitimately ordained until the early middle ages. Today, the usual explanation is that Jesus chose men to be his apostles, and that’s why our tradition retains an all male clergy. However, his mother, Mary, was his most devoted apostle (defined as bearer of the Good News), and Mary of Magdala is called the Apostle to the Apostles. Women as followers and supporters are prominent in Scripture. We don’t have married priests, either—-except that really we do. Several hundred married Episcopalian priests and Lutheran ministers have come into the Catholic church and serve as ordained Catholic priests, complete with families. The rationale against women in the priesthood is as outdated as mandatory celibacy. The Church will lose a wonderful servant if it proceeds with Fr. Roy’s excommunication. It will also lose more and more of those who mourn the continued erosion of post Vatican II reforms, and the refusal to even allow discussion of important issues such as ordination of women.

By MH

December 14, 2008 10:10 PM | Link to this

First, Fr. Roy is a priest, not a brother. Small editorial point, but it’s who he is. He has been an army officer, decorated for bravery. He has been a Maryknoll missionary, serving the poorest of the poor. The remark about being concerned about souls rather than social activism misses the point entirely. Social justice is about souls. Think about slavery, women’s suffrage, civil rights, poverty, hunger, all in our country’s recent history. There are injustices in the world, and without activists who care enough to put themselves on the line, injustice is tolerated, even ignored. Women were foundational in the early church, and there is evidence that women were legitimately ordained until the early middle ages. Today, the usual explanation is that Jesus chose men to be his apostles, and that’s why our tradition retains an all male clergy. However, his mother, Mary, was his most devoted apostle (defined as bearer of the Good News), and Mary of Magdala is called the Apostle to the Apostles. Women as followers and supporters are prominent in Scripture. We don’t have married priests, either—-except that really we do. Several hundred married Episcopalian priests and Lutheran ministers have come into the Catholic church and serve as ordained Catholic priests, complete with families. The rationale against women in the priesthood is as outdated as mandatory celibacy. The Church will lose a wonderful servant if it proceeds with Fr. Roy’s excommunication. It will also lose more and more of those who mourn the continued erosion of post Vatican II reforms, and the refusal to even allow discussion of important issues such as ordination of women.