Posted on 05/20/2010 6:04:23 AM PDT by NYer
She abused a Sacrament; she knew it; the excommunication could have ben lifted by confession, if the Pope so authorized. Only God knows whether in hr final moments she repented; so all we can do is pray for her soul, poor woman.
In my opinion (and only my opinion, dearies) every single Bishop who refuses to carry out Canon 915, should be excommunicated for sacrilege against the Eucharist. That's the Canon that says unrepentant people guilty of manifest grave sin (e.g. Catholic politicians voting for abortion or target=city bombing or gay marriage or torture or the like) MUST (the law says "must") be denied Holy Communion.
But the bishops themselves are openly disobedient.
Yet the times have often favored a female priesthood and never more so than when Christ ordained his first priests, nearly 2,000 years ago. Virtually all the pagan religions of his day had priestesses, and it would have been entirely normal and natural for him to choose women for this task. He had, moreover, a number of excellent potential candidates, from his own Mother, who accompanied him at his first miracle and stood with him as he suffered on the cross, to Mary Magdalene or the women of Bethany. Instead, he chose only men, and he remained immovable on this, continuing right to the end to exhort and train them all, leaving thus a Church which turned out to be safely founded on a rock. From those twelve men a direct line of apostolic succession has given the Catholic Church the bishops and priests it has today.
WOMEN PRIESTS: NO CHANCE
Dang, is this is a column....very biased reporting if supposed to be a straight news story.
This story screams “sweeps month” ratings grabber.
I’m not Catholic and don’t exactly agree with much of the theology, but this is ridiculous. She was not lawfully ordained and therefore does not deserve a Catholic burial. If this results in automatic excommunication (unfortunately it doesn’t in Protestant churches...), she is no longer Christian and therefore should not get treated as such.
There’s a heck of a lot of things Jews weren’t comfortable with, such as eating “unclean” meat etc.
This is one reason why I do not buy the “cultural” argument when it comes to female ordination to pastorship.
Christ upsets the apple cart of the Jews throughout Scripture in very fundamental ways. He wasn’t exactly afraid to do so and would have done so if he believed women could be ordained as pastors.
Christ did respect the women in his church very much. He chose women to tell the news of his Resurrection. I used to attend the Reformed Presbyterian Church, a very conservative denomination that is one of the few smaller branches of Presbyterianism that has women deacons. I have come to the conclusion that deaconesses are Biblical.
Now, I am in the Presbyterian Church in America, which doesn’t because honestly I think they are scared of trending toward the mainline PCUSA that is having the fights over gay ministers and already ordain women as pastors. However, the PCA did study it recently and decided to keep things the way they are now with only men deacons. I disagree, but they did a solid Biblical study and tried to look at the issue.
Anyway, the point is....I do think women can be deacons in the sense of Biblical deacons....those that help the sick, comfort and do those sorts of ministry actions. NOT the “deacons” of the Baptist church that really are elders in the Biblical sense.
That service has traditionally been served by religius women who are trained as nurses, health care aides, hospice workers, teachers, etc.
Mortal sin (gravely wrong action, freely and knowingly done) is not the same as excommunication. Homosexual acts are mortal sins, as is, for instance, "rash judgment." If unrepented, acts of distorted sex, acts of distorted judgment, and any other grave sin, can lead to the soul's eternal woe.
But there are seven actions which result in automatic excommunication (latae sentenciae) under the present Canon Law --- which does not, as I say, mean simply mortal sin. Those actions are:
Why are these automatically excommunicatable? Not because they are "uniquely" sinful, but usually because the person who commits them is deemed to need an especially solemn warning about the gravity of what they've done. Typically because in these sins the person is seriously self-deluded and urgently needs good spiritual counsel.
So excommunication is what's known as a "medicinal" penalty. The point of such penalties is to move the sinner to repentance. It does not mean you are damned. There are several canonized saint (the two that come to mind are St. Joan of Arc and St. Hildegard of Bingen) who was under an unjust sentence of excommunication when they died--obviously the matter was review after their deaths, and they were found not only "not guilty," but very virtuous.
Looking at her picture told me all I needed to know about her sexual lifestyle.
I was frankly surprised, Mr. Levine, upon RE-reading the sad article about the death of Janine Denomme, that you designate yourself a "reporter" on this one. You ought to have called this an Op/Ed. and yourself a "commentator."
From the very headline --- "Woman Ordained as Priest" --- you are not reporting straight facts. Janine Denomme was not ordained. She set herself up for an attempted ordination, or a simulated ordination, or an enactment of an ordination, but she was not "ordained," any more than I could have my friends give me a great statuette of a football player and then call myself a Heisman Trophy winner.
And from your first line --- "There are tough questions for the Archdioces of Chicago" --- you are communicating opinion here, and not facts.
That ought to have been clarified, Mr. Levine.
I feel sorry for this woman, who must have had many attractive qualities. I have prayed for her, because there was apparently a lot she didn't understand.
This applies to you as well. As it does to us all, limited as we are: but God alone knows everything, and is merciful.
But the bishops themselves are openly disobedient.
You're not alone - I share your opinion.
Canon 915 - Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Sadly, Archbishop Chaput has indicated that it is the responsibility of the communicant to stay away from the Communion Rail. This is not correct. Rather, it is the responsibility of the Minister of the Eucharist to deny Holy Communion. This is a huge difference that goes against the Church's teachings regarding canon 915 as well as recent statements from the Vatican stating that the manifest pro-abortion politicians must be denied, and the burden IS upon the Minister to deny, NOT upon the communicant to stay away
. -- from the thread Will Denver Catholic Archbishop finally enforce Canon 915?
"An archbishop who says nothing about these sacrilegious Communions is teaching his diocese that being pro-abortion is not sinful. By flouting Canon 915, he is also teaching his diocese that obedience to Canon Law is optional."A reflection on canon 915
-- FReeper Arthur McGowan, September 17, 2009
“Tough questions”? Let’s see self proclaimed woman priest. Apparent active lesbian. What ‘tough questions’? It’s the Roman Catholic Church., not the Episcopalians. She excommunicated herself by her ‘ordination’. She did not repent. She cast herself out.
I totally endorse the Church and its actions. Now if they would be just as vocal in not allowing politicians who are pro abortion from having Catholic burials (Ted Kennedy pops into my mind)then I will have tons more respect for their decision.
spine!
Kennedy and other politicians of like mind and heart excommunicate themselves by their actions.
I think this needs to be upgraded from barf alert to steaming pile warning.
That being said I do hope the woman repented of her sins and was reconciled to Christ.
In other words, she was counting on there being a soft-hearted priest somewhere who would go against Catholic teaching, and give her a Catholic burial, even after she'd been excommunicated.
She was making her own rules, in the church she'd created in her mind, as the one SHE thought would be 'just'. Too bad she didn't consider sinfulness and pride when she was considering 'justice'. Those are the things that she used to reject the Church with regards to ordination, and God's natural law with regards to her choice of sexual orientation.
The women who were 'deacons' in the early Church didn't perform the same ministerial roles that either Permanent or Transitional Deacons perform nowadays.
These days, women are heavily involved in their Parishes in activities such as religious education, nursing, hospitality, bereavement, etc. These are the same functions those women who served as 'deacons' in early Church performed, and those in which women have been involved throughout the history of the Church.
You, me, and Arthur --- The Canonical Gang of Three! Let's take as our Patron Saint my favorite missionary Archbishop, Inquisitor, and scourge of the corrupt clergy, Abp. Toribio (also called St. Turibius of Mongrovejo.)
Think I'm kidding?
*********************
In what way was this woman a Catholic?
Boy, the article is really biased!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.