Skip to comments.Jesuit Suspended After Joining Female 'Priest' for Liturgy
Posted on 12/04/2012 9:01:59 AM PST by marshmallow
An elderly Jesuit priest has been suspended from ministry in the Milwaukee archdiocese after he joined in a liturgical celebration with a woman who claims to be a Catholic priest.
Father Bill Brennan told the National Catholic Reporter that his Jesuit superiors had barred him from public ministry at the request of Milwaukees Archbishop Jerome Listecki. The 92-year-old priest said that he was also told not to contact the mediaan order that he apparently ignored in speaking with the National Catholic Reporter.
Jesuit, 92, penalized after eucharistic liturgy with woman priest (National Catholic Reporter)
Jesuit’s - It’s what they do
He’s only 92: it’s not too late for him to convert to Catholicism ...
This rot had set in more than a generation before the Second Vatican Council.
Liturgy alone is not culprit.
The spokesman for the province's comment is essentially: "The news about his suspension is accurate. Also, he is totally awesome. Just a super guy."
And the bishop solves the problem. Thanks!
And the bishop solves the problem. Thanks!
Yup. Birds of a feather.
Nobody seems to remember that the N"C"R was sanctioned by its territorial bishop in 1968 or thereabouts for publishing heresy and ignoring church teachings. Of course they ignored him.
There’s a grain of truth in saying ... the older one gets, the wiser one gets.
You are saying that it was a wise move for this 92 yo Priest to go against the Church teachings?
He probably considers himself a man priestess, and thought it would be a wash.
Just so. There were numerous dissidents crawling in the woodwork, and they saw Vatican II as their chance to come out in the open, and regretably to take charge of numerous religious orders and dioceses.
Vatican II was distorted and hijacked by those dissident priests and nuns.
It could be the first time in a long time a Jesuit had anything to do with a woman.
My Pastor went to the Vatican to meet Pope John Paul II. There was a Jesuit with his group and was introduced as such. The Pope asked “but are you a Catholic?”
Politically wise, no; factually wise, yes.
The Earth, for instance, is not flat.
The Franciscan asked, "What's a Mercedes Benz?"
The Jesuit asked, "What's a novena?"
“Hes only 92: its not too late for him to convert to Catholicism .”
Ha HAAAAA Hilarious, just beautiful bon mot.
LOL! Post of the day. :)
Sorry-I had to laugh at that.
And as for the earth: we've known the earth was a sphere --- and known, within a few miles, its circumference --- since about 240 BC. Which is nothing to the point, except this: we apparently know more about spheres and circumferences than poor Fr. Brennan knows about the sexes and the sacraments.
Thank you, I’ll be here all week!
I don’t know how you got the idea, that I thought this Priest was right in what he did. I am certainly not for the ordination of any woman as a Priest.
Personally I think the old guy at 92 has lost his marbles./
Would you recommend the veal? :)
Hope that wasn't too confusing.
No, I heard the veal is not as fresh as it could be.
The Jesuits can be a problem at times.
There are some excellent ones, but many seem nuts. Of course, the “regular joes” don’t make the news.
The Pope has the authority to proclaim, ex cathedra, that women can be priests, and it won't be long before it happens.
Thanks, I should have read the whole thread and then I would have understood.
Ya know the world is changing, and we do know a lot of things now that we didn’t know before.
One of the good thing about the catholic religion is that some thing should not change. Just because feminists are ranting now does not mean that they can take the place of a Priest, nor should they.
Personally I believe some of these Nuns who wish to be Priests have a gender problem and like other women.
“The Pope has the authority to proclaim, ex cathedra, that women can be priests, and it won’t be long before it happens.”
Until it happens, the Catholics will claim he doesn’t have the authority, because that would clearly contradict the Bible. If it does happen, the Catholics will claim that he always had the authority, and there is no contradiction with the Bible.
Ths is flatly impossible. You don't know what you're talking about.
In Inter Insigniores (1977), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said: "The Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination."
Pope John Paul II upped the ante considerably in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994): "We declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
In October 1995, the CDF strongly reiterated Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: "This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium." The ban on women's ordination belongs "to the deposit of the faith," the responsum said.
In a cover letter to the responsum, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the congregation, asked presidents of bishops' conferences to "do everything possible to ensure its distribution and favorable reception, taking particular care that, above all on the part of theologians, pastors of souls and religious, ambiguous and contrary positions will not again be proposed."
It is not only impossible, it is irrational to suppose that this Pope, or any Pope, could at some point "back off" on what has repeatedly been set forth infallibly as part of the ordinary Magisterium.
I say "irrational" because to do so would be to say that a Pope, as such, has "authority" greater than that of every previous pope who said, "This ain't happening, buddy, so get over it."
To do so would actually be to undercut the authority of the papacy, to put it in a literally absurd position like the Anglicans.
Trust me. This ain't happening, buddy. If anyone says otherwise,it's anathema sit, which (almost) rhymes with "a crock of
The point of teaching infallibly is that such teaching cannot be changed later. The inadmissability of women to Holy Orders has already been taught infallibly, and therefore its converse cannot be. Ever.
So much for infallibiolity ... Has anyone out there noted the anti-famale teachings of Christianlity and Islam?
Right, you’ve basically confirmed my first sentence. Now, if the Pope ever does do what OldNavyVet thinks he will, then we will find out if my second sentence is also correct.
Personally, I doubt it will happen, but we’ll see.
Sorry, it’s not “anti-female” to think that there are some jobs for which women are unsuited. If they are, in all factuality, unsuited for those jobs, then it would instead be “anti-female” to insist that they perform them, with the same expectations of performance applied to men.
Also, being in a position of authority in the Church is not some brass ring that women are being denied. It’s not a prize, but a burden for those who take up the mantle. God will judge them by a harsher standard than the rest of us. So, those of us who aren’t chosen for that task, including the ladies, are getting off easy, and not being denied a perk.
I do know that Islam countenances
All this is in direct contrast to Catholicism ---yes, point for point --- and any reasonably well-informed person must acknowledge that.
Catholicism teaches that men and women equally bear the "image and likeness of God" (Gen.2) and even more radically, that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ" (Ephesians 3:28).
I don't know a lot about Islamic Scriptures, but I don't think there is any parallel to this equal dignity of persons in the Koran.
The Constitution on the Church in the Modern World says that it is Catholics' obligation to avoid "every form--whether social or cultural-- of discrimination with respect to the fundamental rights of persons, whether on the basis of sex, race, color, social condition, language, or religion (GS 29).
"Fundamental rights of persons" are rather closely defined, and are not to be confused with the endless, and endlessly conflicting "rights" claimed in liberal secular societies which demand coerced equal outcome. In contrast, the rights spoken of in Catholicism would be defined by Natural and not positive law.
A fuller treatment of legitimate equality and legitimatize diversity can be found here: http://twotlj.org/G-2-7-A.html. It rewards a close reading.
That would be true even if some deranged pontiff (per impossibile, per halluciation, per LSD) went through the motions of ordaining females in the Sistine Chapel, pranced them about Gangnam-style and vested them in rainbow chasubles. It would not in fact make them priests any more than putting a fake vagina and boobs on a tranny makes him a woman.
But I swear by all that's high and holy that it ain't happenin'.
Ain't. Happenin'. Evah.
I'd like to go further, though. The priesthood isn't only about "authority" -- some priests have very little authority. Nothing wrong with the Pauline Scriptures which I'm sure Boogieman has in mind, but they don't explain the "why" of the matter, nor is it crystal clear that they're promulgating divine law, rather than Paul's opinion.
Here's the "why," and here's why it's divine law, and cannot be changed by any man's word.
In the Mass, the priest acts in persona Christi ("in the person of Christ") in the sense of a actor playing a role, only more so. The "role" he's playing is that of Christ the Bridegroom in the Marriage feast of the Lamb. Placing a woman in that position is literally saying that a woman can model "husbandness" in marriage just as well as a man can.
And if we really believe that, then we ought to be marrying lesbians to one another. It's not surprising, in fact it's almost required by the dynamic of the thing, that the Anglican and Lutheran churches -- who have an understanding of ministry that's at least somewhat akin to the Catholic understanding -- who first started ordaining women to their priesthood have, in many cases, now started "marrying" homosexuals. One thing leads logically to the other.
Either sexuality is intrinsic to one's being, or it's an accident. Either the Mass anticipates the Marriage Feast just as much as it recapitulates the Crucifixion, or it doesn't. Picking the first of those alternatives in each case isn't an "option" or a "possibility" in Catholicism; it's absolutely intrinsic to the nature of the faith itself.
Because of that, a "Catholic" church which attempted to ordain women would cease to be Catholic by that very act. That is just as true if the church in question is St. Peter's, and the bishop attempting to ordain is the Pope of Rome.