Maryknoll priest Fr. Roy Bourgeois last year faced excommunication from the Vatican because of his decision to take part in the ordination of a women as a priest.
After taking part in the female ordination, he was given a certain amount of time to recant his role or be excommunicated but he refused and it was assumed he was subsequently automatically excommunicated after that time had elapsed.
Well one enterprising columnist Gary Stern from LoHud.com called the priest and boy did he get an earful. Firstly, Fr. Bourgeois doesn’t consider himself excommunicated.
Bourgeois told me that he has not heard from the Vatican since the fall. Not a note, an e-mail, nothing. So he is continuing to celebrate Mass and baptize babies.
“I have not gotten anything saying I am defrocked,” he said. “I continue to be a Catholic priest in good standing.”
Hmmm. Two months ago, Maryknoll’s superior general, the Rev. Edward M. Dougherty, issued a statement saying that Bourgeois had been “automatically excommunicated” when he did not meet the Vatican’s deadline to recant.
I contacted Maryknoll this week, and they were taken aback that Bourgeois disagrees.
“We are surprised and are saddened that his actions may present an obstacle in the path toward his reconciliation with Church authorities,” a new statement said. “We are still hoping that he will reconsider his position and be reconciled with the Vatican, a hope that they also have expressed.”
Seeking clarification, I faxed a note to the Vatican press office. No response so far.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops would not touch this one.
Just for clarification, as of Dec. 10th of last year, Maryknoll considered Father Roy Bourgeois excommunicated, according to the National Catholic Register which wrote that day:
Q. Does Maryknoll consider Father Roy Bourgeois to be excommunicated?
A. “We believe that he has been excommunicated. This was done by the CDF, not by us.”Q. As of today, Dec. 10?
A. “Yes.”Q. Have you heard from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about it?
A. “There has been no direct communication from the CDF regarding that.”Q. Then why do you consider him excommunicated?
A. “Because he was given 30 days to recant his actions, and he had responded saying that he could not recant those actions, he has been excommunicated at the end of that” period of time.
But just yesterday Bourgeois was quoted in a piece about a protest group supporting Catholic female ordination in a separate newspaper account in The Monitor in which he is introduced as “Father Roy Bourgeois, a Maryknoll priest and founder of School of the Americas Watch, an activist group that monitors U.S. foreign policy in Latin America.”
All I can say is that this is a situation begging for clear closure. Someone better get this squared away because there very well may be an excommunicated priest celebrating Mass and baptizing babies which may not be valid (or at least licit.) The Church owes it to the people to straighten this matter out.
But not content to leave well enough alone, Bourgeois upped the ante again in speaking to the columnist from LoHud.com in comparing the Vatican to the Ayatollahs in Iran.
But bombastic language and Bourgeois are well acquainted. In the past, Bourgeois has compared himself to Rosa Parks and said that because he’d been a priest since 1972 he was owed a sit down with the Pope to convince him of the correctness of women’s ordination. Here’s what was written this week by the LoHud.com columnist:
When I spoke to Bourgeois this week, he compared the Catholic Church’s unwillingness to ordain women as priests to the Iranian regime’s authoritative approach to crowd control.
“We, as men, claim this divine right to interpret the will of God, and it’s similar to what the ayatollahs are saying,” he told me.
What!?
Bourgeois then added that he believes the Vatican is guilty of “outdated sexism” and a “sin” for their failure to follow Bourgeois’ lead in ordaining women. Bourgeois said: “The exclusion of women is a grave injustice and a sin…This is a movement whose time has come. It’s not going away.” And nor does it seem will Bourgeois anytime soon.
Update: Welcome Spirit Daily readers. While you’re here please feel free to check out some other recent stories.
Mass for Clunkers
I Am A Fishy American
The Miracle at Woodstock.
HT Pewsitter
August 10, 2009 at 2:55 am
The baptisms and Masses are probably valid, just not licit.
August 10, 2009 at 3:32 am
Wouldn't a baptism by an excommunicated person still be valid? Aren't SSPX baptisms from the time their bishops were excommunicated still valid? Unlike marriage and confession I don't think baptism depends on proper faculties of the person performing the sacrament. Now if he's using some wacky formula or doesn't intent to do what the Church does that's a different story.
The big question here is why didn't the CDF release an explicit statement saying that Fr. Bourgeois is excommunicated.
August 10, 2009 at 3:48 am
I agree that the CDF should clearly be saying something about this.
And agree that while an excommunicated priest can still say a valid Mass, it's licitness is questionable. And can lead others into mortal sin.
August 10, 2009 at 3:49 am
Seems like another priest who thinks the Church's teachings can 'change' I guess that he would accuse St Paul of sexism.
August 10, 2009 at 3:53 am
Brian,
Yes, a baptism by an excommunicated person, or any person in a state of emergency (ie, imminent death) is valid. And the other sacraments are valid so long as he does them in the form directed by the Church, but are illicit as he is not longer in the Body of Christ.
For someone like this obviously unrepentant heretic who has no intention of recognizing the authority of the Pope or of reconciling, a greater punishment must be meted out to avoid scandal. That would be a dismissal from the clerical state, as noted in other cases.
At that point, any mass he celebrates would be invalid, since is no longer recognized as having priestly authority.
August 10, 2009 at 3:54 am
Canonically, he DOES have to be informed of the decree of excommunication. The warning isn't necessarily enough. That was necessary to give him a chance to recant/repent. But even if he fulfilled the conditions of excommunication, it had to be carried out. However, I wonder if, being a religious order priest, that excommunication would be carried out by his own superiors? That I don't know, we didn't study that part of Canon law.
Class starts for us again in a couple weeks and we have same prof for one of those classes as we did for Canon Law, will try to remember to ask about this situation.
But it seems to me that the sacraments he performs would be valid, but not licit. Remember…"thou art a priest forever". That can't change, but if he hasn't the faculties, and Maryknoll is clearly not considering him to have the faculties, well, illicit.
And scandalous.
August 10, 2009 at 5:14 am
Just have to say I love seeing Gary Stern quoted here. He writes for my hometown paper, and I like to see the local boys make good!
August 10, 2009 at 5:43 am
There should be a clear statement that this erratic priest is EXCOMMUNICATED to lessen the confusion among Catholic faithfuls.
August 10, 2009 at 5:58 am
I don't understand these dissident (sp?) priests and sisters. Why haven't they moved on to the neo-Episcopal Church to confirm them in their sin. If you disagree with a Church teaching and then flat out disobey it you are no longer in communion. Pretty simple.
August 10, 2009 at 7:07 am
Steven,
I think that you assessment is not quite accurate. Loss of the clerical state, AFAIK does not make his Masses invalid. (The Code of Canon Law, see canons 291 and 292, states that the priest keeps his power and ordination, but cannot have offices or faculties and may not exercise his power. This means 'former' priests can not read at Mass, much less be on parish council, and should be careful about blessing their food or even saying bless you.) Anyway dismissal from the clerical state is not something that every happens automatically, and since the authorities are slow to excommunicate defrocking could take a while. Dismissal is not medicinal penalty meant to encourage conversion, but a expiatory penalty, a permanent punishment.
As far as validity, baptisms are always valid without a contrary intention. Atheists, heretics, apostates, whoever, as long as they do not clearly consider the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit to be distinct Gods, can all baptize validly.
Mass and the anointing of the sick would always be valid, with the proper intention, form, and matter, but being that he is at the very least suspended they would illicet, be gravely sinful for him and any Catholic who knowingly participate.
Marriage of Catholic would be invalid, but marriage of non-Catholic would have at least the appearance of validity. This is because the minister of marriage is the couple, and the priest or deacon is the official witness. Catholics need an official witness to bless the marriage, unless they have permission from their bishop. Oddly in the danger of death Catholic can marry validly without a priest or deacon.
Confession is delegated by the bishop or by the law itself. So confession would be invalid. The exception is that when a person is in danger of death then by Canon 976 the absolution would be valid.
It is always tempting to say the sacraments of those who are committing sacrilege by celebrating them are invalid. Traditionalist schismatic groups have all sorts of exotic theories to make Fr. Friendly in the rainbow stole just another guy with a stupid scarf eating cookies. This denies the utter humility of Christ's presence in the sacraments, and his faithfulness in the light of our infidelity. Sorry but wack-job excommunicant or not he is still a priest.
August 10, 2009 at 7:38 am
Anon @ 12:58 said "Why haven't they moved on to the neo-Episcopal Church to confirm them in their sin."
The answer: because that would VALIDATE the fact that they are wrong. I have spoken to some of these dissidents, and they are convinced that they are RIGHT. And that it is the rest of the church and 2,000 years of tradition that is wrong. It's like when a spoiled brat holds their breath until the parent caves in and gives them a cookie. They are waiting for the church to say, "there there. You were right all along."
One other point, I don't think we need to worry about the people going up to Bougeoise. They know exactly who he is, and they know what they are getting into. He's just another cult-of-personality priest who surrounds himself with wagging heads and sychophants to exhalt himself among the masses while at the same time of course he preaches that there is nothing special about priests anymore than anyone else.
May God forgive the Maryknollers for the scandal and evil they have done to the church.
August 10, 2009 at 3:00 pm
2:38 anon is right about validation. Also, I'd add that by staying in the Catholic Church, they get to pretend they are little ol' David facing off big mean ol' Vatican Goliath. If they left, they'd be just another Epsicopalian. It is evident that they have been sucking democrack from the secular-progressive crackpipe, and thus have a Sauron-like intolerance of anything not like them.
August 10, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Somebody had better inform our pastor that "former" priests aren't allowed to perform such functions as reading, etc. One in our parish not only does readings, he's a EMHC, married to a divorcee, and a teacher at our local high school. So much for obedience to the Holy See. In fact our pastor has told me that "whenever anything comes from Rome, we close our eyes." And nobody seems to know or care, because, as he says at the close of every Sunday Mass, "Remember, God loves you".
August 10, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Anonymous: I have never heard anythign abut laicized priests not being allowed to be readers, etc. Excommunicated priests, maybe. But if the man in your parish was regularly laicized, I don't think there's anything wrong with what his doing what you say.
August 10, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Scott, good comments. Never thought I'd learn so much about crack on this blog : P
Anonymous @ 12:11, Gail is right. If he is laicized, he is allowed to perform the functions you state. And the fact that his wife is a "divorcee" is none of your business, and is in fact petty. If he is a Catholic in good standing (i.e. his wife was granted an annulment) then that is all that matters. If you are concerned with this, take it to the bishop or the office of the Holy See. Throwing around gossip and innuendo here does nothing but bring scandal to the church. If that was your intent, then you need a better hobby.
August 10, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Women priests. Pfff, that's nothing. When my son grows up he wants to be a nun!
I'm kidding folks. It's just as ridiculous as women priests. Everyone pray for us sinners.
I sincerely doubt any priest that openly or quietly acts against their ordination as Christ and His Church intended even prays the Divine Office every day when they are supposed too. Everyone should just ask their pastors about this whenever they get a chance, and if they aren't lying to your face they probably don't. But they probably do have a girlfriend or boyfriend to satiate their carnal desires. It's sad and pathetic, but it happens folks. More than you know.
August 10, 2009 at 8:07 pm
One other thing I just found. In November of 2008, Fr. James Martin wrote a piece in America which largely extolled the virtues of Fr. Ray. At the end of the piece he wrote: "The ordination rite in which Fr. Bourgeois participated occurred in August. That means that within three months, the excommunication had been communicated from the Vatican to Fr. Bourgeois. In the eyes of the Vatican, his actions represented a grave offense that required swift action and a severe penalty.
Would that the church had acted with equal swiftness against sexually abusive priests. Would that bishops who had moved abusive priests from parish to parish were met with the same severity of justice.
Were their offenses of lesser "gravity"? Did they cause lesser "scandal"?"
I really don't like this kind of red herring. Look, nobody likes what occured during the sex scandal. But sins occur. And so does repentance.
The Vatican gave Fr. Ray a chance to repent and he didn't.
So, according to Fr. Martin's logic, because the Church failed to acted properly in many ways during the sex scandal, the Church cannot act in a proper manner in other cases?
This is the language that the enemies of the Church often use. When backed into a corner they bring up the scandal as a means to question the Church's authority.
August 10, 2009 at 8:47 pm
It really doesn't matter if Father doesn't think he is or is not excommunicated. He is excommunicated for the very reason that he participated in a ordination of a female priest.
By participating in that he excommunicated himself. All the Church did was officially inform Father that his actions have excommunicated him. The action caused the excommunication not the Church telling him he was excommunicated.
August 10, 2009 at 10:19 pm
I agree with Harrison. If you go against the church which Christ said HE would found, as it has remained in truth bound to Him, you have gone against Christ Himself and are no longer part of His body. Harsh, but true. At least that's how I was taught to interpret the "keys of heaven" given to Peter and the enjoinder that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against you"…
In that same passage, Christ said: you are ROCK and upon this ROCK, I will build MY church. (Emphasis on the I and MY) The church is Christ's to form and instruct in the heirarchy that He left behind Him with which it should be instructed. Not by any disobedient preist.
Fr. Padre Pio was a bit of a "radical" for his time, but the reason he's a saint is because he showed Christlike humility and obedience to his superiors. A good test of someone's holiness is their will to go up on a cross for what they believe in. That cross may have to be obedience to their superiors. But that's why that test is there… to for and prove a person a saint.
Priests who get too involved in the cult of personalities and fail to show obedience to their superiors are no better than lay Catholics who fail to participate in the sacraments.
August 10, 2009 at 11:21 pm
I apologize for stating earlier that laicized priests can not hold ecclesiastical office. I was wrong. Mea culpa. I mis-read the canon, it said (can. 292) they lose office not that they can not be appointed to office.