Leading Catholics says no question of excommunication for outspoken priest Father Tony Flannery

I am certainly not as learned in the Roman Catholic Church as the writers of the previous comments, but as I have previously stated in other forums, most documents that are referenced are written by men in a time and circumstance when men are dominant and women are chattel or little more than chattel with no rights. How one can argue today that many of these documents or the interpretation of the documents is pertinent today is ludicrous. The only real argument is the interpretation of the document at the time it was written. Just because it had a particular meaning at the time based on circumstances does not entitle the interpretation to be relevant today. Someday we'll look back at the inane interpretations and how the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy held on to the old ways for their own personal benefit and we'll laugh and we'll laugh. Imagine how upset Jesus would be with the criminal money changers in the Vatican if he was alive today. It seems to me the rules of the church are a matter of selecting convenient sections or distorting sections to serve the masters and pretending those that would interfere with the hierarchy are non-existent.

Eiriamach, the decree "Presbyterorum Ordinis" implicitly tells us that men are accepted only into the priesthood when it stated ".he Priest in such a way that they can act in the person of Christ the Head.." The person of Christ as the Incarnated Messiah was male and His position as the Head of the Body of the Faithful represented the biblical concept of leadership e.g. in relation to a House or Synagogue, which was only reserved for men. There is nothing implicit or explicit in the documents of the Great Council to give comfort to anyone hoping for a change in the criteria which has marked the priesthood. I agree that celibacy in theory can be changed and should indeed be recognized as a gift. But celibacy is a radical countersign to the materialism and hedonism of this world and has become deeply linked with the Christological dimension of priesthood.

Gearoid4, perhaps you've named the wrong decree? Presbyterorum Ordinis, published by PPaul VI on the last day of the Council, does not set out any exclusions from the priesthood, just as Jesus excluded no one. It leaves such issues as qualifications for the priesthood and celibacy in the keeping of the Holy Spirit: "Truly this world, indeed weighed down with many sins but also endowed with many talents, provides the Church with the living stones which are built up into the dwelling place of God in the Spirit. This same Holy Spirit, while impelling the Church to open new ways to go to the world of today, suggests and favors the growth of fitting adaptations in the ministry of priests." "New ways" and "fitting adaptations" are a door open to needed change, to the Holy Spirit doing new things, and to replacing maladaptive traditions with efficacious ones. This decree goes into detail in observing that celibacy is a "gift" of "great value" though not originally part of the priesthood and still not practiced in the Eastern churches. It is a discipline imposed in modern times but changeable as necessary for priests to serve the faithful effectively. And if there is any word in this decree that reserves the priesthood to males or to heterosexuals, it's invisible to me. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to quote it?

Eiriamach, I think that you have not grasped the teachings of Vatican 11 with respect to the priesthood and the concept of "Sensus Fidelium". The Great Council re-iterated the age-old Catholic understanding of the Priesthood that is should be restricted to men only and pre-configured on Jesus Christ, as this is what Our Lord desired. As the late Pontiff, Pope Paul V1 wrote in the Vatican document, PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS(DECREE ON THE MINISTRY AND LIFE OF PRIESTS)(1965): .."Thus priests “are signed with a special character and are conformed to Christ the Priest in such a way that they can act in the person of Christ the Head..” You cannot measure "Sensus Fidelium" via opinion polls or majority opinion as it is determined by all sections of the Church acting in unison and agreement in receiving a definite doctrinal teaching. Vatican 11 involved both clerical and lay participation although the percentage was weighed much in favor of the former. The role of the laity took a central place in the proclamations of the this Great Council. This has yet to come to full fruition in terms of lay reception and appreciation of Vatican doctrinal decisions. The problem has been that generations have received inadequate religious instruction in school and many people leave school without fully comprehending the nature of the priesthood in terms of it's sacrificial and Christological dimensions. If one stripped the priesthood of these qualities, it might be just another 9-5 job and judged in worldly terms. But it is precisely those attributes which has contributed to the formation of the Catholic priesthood from it's earliest beginnings.

Gearoid4, you've made it clear that you reject the teachings of Vatican II, a church council that, like all previous councils, has authority above that of any pope. You consider Fr Flannery's "opinion on the priesthood, contraception and homosexuality ... squarely at odds with the Church." WHO do you think is "the Church"? Vatican II, quoted by Fr Flannery, clearly states that the entire people of God "cannot err in matters of belief." No pope, cardinal, or bishop has "authority" superior to a council's. The latest church Council acknowledges the infallibility of the sensus fidelium, which is the indispensable source of infallibility for papal dogma (which does not exist on the priesthood). Further, the council acknowledged the inviolability of the considered conscience, as Fr Flannery points out. Who are you, then, to prefer a minority of one -- the conscience of a pope -- to that of any other Christian, as though the conscience of that one cancels the consciences of the many? Your rejection of Vatican II Council teachings on these two central beliefs places you *outside* the Roman Catholic Church, in schism, along with SSPX and others that reject council teachings in favor of their OWN authority. You should sign your comments with your schismatic affiliation rather than leaving the impression that you speak for the Roman Catholic Church. You clearly do not; you speak only for yourself and your fellow ultra-conservatives!

In my last commentary, I should have clarified the context in which I used the word "evolved". It was used in relation to the how the sacerdotal office of presbyter(Gk "elder in community") came to be renamed priest in the early Christian centuries.

I'll agree with you on one point, Eiriamach, the Faithful over the years, have received a very poor presentation and indeed inadequate explanation from the pulpit, for the 2000 year old tradition of the male-only priesthood in the Latin Church(which is affirmed by the Orthodox part of the Church universal). Those who object to the restriction of the priesthood to men are heavily influenced by the social attitudes in their own neighborhoods and countries in the west which view any attempt to exclude men or women from certain positions as tantamount to discrimination and a breach of their rights. But the Church universal sees Jesus as the ultimate model for priesthood and the fact that He chose 12 men to be his closest disciples is not incidental to the choice that was made. Therefore maleness forms an important qualification for someone aspiring to the priesthood but not the only one of course. The biblical image of the man as being the head of the household also helped to form the priesthood as it evolved down the centuries. This is not to discriminate against women but to emphasize the complementary but different roles that men and women have in the life of the Church. Mary, the Mother of Jesus is held in such high esteem that adulation of Her in Latin is known as "Hyperdulia" which is a status above the angels and the saints. Women have been elevated to the glorious ranks of the Doctors of the Church, e.g. Térèse of Lisieux or St Teresa of Avila. Many great women saints have been declared down the centuries such as Mary Helen MacKillop from Australia, also known as St. Mary of the Cross, R.S.J. So women have been raised to the highest echelons of the Heavenly Host and the Church without them cannot survive.

In his statement to the CDF, Fr Flannery also referred to Vatican II's focus on freedom of conscience: " I point to the Declaration on Religious Liberty issued by Vatican II. This document states that human persons are bound to adhere to the truth, once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with truth. I am aware that ... the Declaration on Religious Liberty focuses on the religious freedom that must be accorded to the human person by the civil authorities. However, I believe when the Church declares 'in religious matters, every form of coercion by men should be excluded' that this teaching should also guide the governance of the church in dealing with its own members." And he appeals to the Vatican to extend the same tolerance to his conscience that it has extended to the openly dissenting SSPX. Well argued, Fr Flannery.

Rarely have I read a more reasonable or better informed response than Fr Flannery's to the CDF, in which he makes points similar to those I raised below: "Lumen Gentium 12 states that 'The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when ‘from the bishops down to the last of the lay faithful’ they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals' There are clear indications from research, and also from my many years of pastoral experience, that a great many of the faithful have not ‘received’ this teaching [against women's ordination]. Putting that together with the findings of the Pontifical Biblical Commission [that refused to reject it], I am left with serious questions about the teaching on the ordination of women in the Catholic Church. I also have questions as to whether sufficient level of discernment was undertaken prior to the decree that the topic of the admission of women to ministerial priesthood should not be discussed by faithful members of the Catholic Church. I have given this serious consideration and I find it difficult to dismiss the strong possibility that the Holy Spirit may have been speaking through the aforementioned Pontifical commission, and may be currently speaking through the voice of the faithful. So I am left with serious and difficult questions" (on ACP web site).

Eireamach apparently has no life outside of Irish Central Catholic bashing. Must be a very sad existence indeed.....

Eiriamach, the Vatican has not come anywhere near pronouncing an excommunication sentence on Fr Flannery. I recognize that his priestly duties have been suspended for a year or more but there is room for negotiation. This pries has cast the die in terms of his opinion on the priesthood, contraception and homosexuality which are squarely at odds with the Church. You mention the "sensum fidelium" in relation to a consensus in relation to moral matters within the Church. But decisions have been decided long ago and are not dependent on public opinion polls to decide them. The concept of "Sensus Fidelium " cannot be set apart from the objective nature of truth and Vatican 11 is a good example of this. Truth can only be arrived at through a well informed conscience and not one that is drifting with the wind of worldly fads or public opinion. "Humanae Vitae"(1968) which you refer to, has turned out to be largely prophetic in relation to the objectivization of women and the breakdown of marriages as the divorce rate skyrockets etc. This much misunderstood Papal document has been largely right in it's prediction concerning the outcome of the effects of the increasing availability of contraception. As for Gary Willis, his position is clearly on the left and his animosity towards the traditional positions of the Church is well known. So he is hardly a neutral authority in regards to the doctrine of the Church. In fact the priesthood as understood by the Catholic Church is also recognized in similar vein by the Orthodox and Eastern-rite Catholic Churches all derived from ancient apostolic succession. So I think that they have understood the biblical concept of priesthood rather better than dubious sources like Gary Wills.

Usually I disagree with the conservative columnist Frank Bruni of the NY Times. But his current article, "Catholicism’s Curse," Jan 26, alludes to Fr Flannery at the center of a growing consensus: "I have a problem [...] with the church’s arrogance, a thread that runs through [Gary] Wills’ book [...]; through fresh revelations of how assiduously a cardinal in Los Angeles worked to cover up child sexual abuse; and through the church’s attempts to silence dissenters, including an outspoken clergyman in Ireland who was recently back in the news." Bruni thinks Wills' forthcoming book “Why Priests? A Failed Tradition” supports Fr Flannery's view that the priesthood was shaped by a “privileged group within the community who had abrogated power and authority to themselves.” Early Christians actually opposed the idea of a permanent priesthood as unnecessary, and thought that subjecting the laity to priestly authority was anti-biblical. Bruni writes, "The priesthood was a subsequent tweak, and the same goes for the all-male, celibate nature of the Roman Catholic clergy and the autocratic hierarchy that this clergy inhabits, an unresponsive government whose subjects — the laity — have limited say. 'It can’t admit to error, the church hierarchy,' Wills told me on the phone on Thursday. 'Any challenge to their prerogative is, in their eyes, a challenge to God. You can’t be any more arrogant than that.'”

Correction: that's "sensus fidelium," the "sense of the faithful" in their considered judgment on matters of the faith, morality, efficacy of tradition or discipline, etc. A Vatican pronouncement that the sensus fidelium cannot accept meets the same fate as Humanae Vitae. It's nearly universally ignored.

Gearoid4, "If the Vatican was to take certain action against him" -- What actions? What more can the Vatican do except defrocking or "officially," not just latens sententiae," excommunicating, as the CDF's letter warned Fr Flannery: "canon 1364 says that ‘a heretic … incurs a latae sentientiae excommunication’. Before imposing the sanctions provided for in the law, it is the practice of the CDF to take steps to restore a priest to the faith." The CDF has already silenced him, forbidden him to publish his column without a censor from the Vatican approving the text, and removed him from ministry! What more can they do to him? When an absolute ruler imposes censorship and ousts faculty from their teaching positions or priests from their ministries for opening up discussions that the tyrant doesn't wish opened up, we have an intolerable situation. Americans cherish freedom of speech despite its occasionally heavy burdens. Public and private secular universities practice a serious form of this freedom, called academic freedom, in the public interest. An institution that forbids discussion of contentious issues in an open forum violates the spirit of our democratic processes and consigns itself to the footnotes of history. How foolish! American Catholics and other Christians will not cease discussing the issues raised by Fr Flannery and others until we reach consensus -- the sensus fiedium!

I agree, Donald that Luther certainly stood and faced the religious authorities of the day, as at the Diet of Worms in 1521 when he famously stated "my conscience is captive to the Word of God". Certainly one can have a sneaking admiration for him while not finding favor with some of his theological conclusions or his foundation of a new "church" which started the reformation and cleaved Latin Christianity in two. One does not have to launch Ad Hominem attacks while legitimately finding fault with someone's theological beliefs or opinions. As with Luther, one can reach conclusions which markedly differ from those of Fr Flannery without impugning his character in any way. But this does not mean that you have to avoid making warranted criticisms when they are necessary.