The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Vatican rejects Maryknoll brother elected as superior
Aug. 24, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionRome has vetoed an election by the Maryknoll religious order which would have seen a religious brother, meaning someone not ordained to the priesthood, installed as the order's superior in the United States. Instead, the Vatican has directed that Maryknoll must choose a cleric for the job.
The decision, communicated to Maryknoll in early August, is consistent with earlier Vatican rulings that in religious orders containing both priests and lay brothers, formal authority must be exercised by priests. In 2002, the Vatican nixed an attempt by the Capuchin Franciscans to elect a brother as provincial superior of their Detroit-St. Joseph Province.
In general, church-watchers say that policy is intended to defend the theology of apostolic succession, in which decision-making power in the church is believed to flow through the sacrament of holy orders. Although religious brothers take vows and are generally seen as equals within their communities, under the church's canon law they are considered laity.
The decision means that Maryknoll Br. Wayne Fitzpatrick, elected in May to the position of regional superior for the United States, will not take that office. New elections are currently underway, with the result expected by late August.
For now, Fitzpatrick will continue serving as the order's director of continuing education and lifelong formation.
Fr. Ed Dougherty, the superior general of Maryknoll, told NCR that the order's constitutions specify that if a brother is elected to certain offices, the order must petition Rome for permission. Because Maryknoll is a missionary society, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, the Vatican office that oversees missionary activity.
Dougherty said he asked the congregation to approve Fitzpatrick's election, hoping that the fact that a majority of electors were priests, combined with Fitzpatrick's track record of leadership in the order, would overcome the presumption in favor of a priest. He said Fitzpatrick has previously served on the order's general council in the United States for two terms, as well as holding the position of secretary general of the entire order for twelve years.
In addition, Dougherty said, a religious brother had been elected to the position of assistant regional superior in Kenya twelve years ago, and in that case the Vatican approved the result.
Dougherty said members of the order were "very disappointed" in the Vatican decision, feeling they had chosen "the best person for the job." He questioned the logic that the office of a superior in a religious order must be a priest, arguing that a brother can do "exactly the same things" as a priest in terms of administration.
"I wasn't surprised, to tell you the truth," Dougherty said of the Vatican decision. "There's still a hierarchical sense in which having a brother over a priest is a problem. There's a fear of a slippery slope, of the camel getting its nose under the tent" toward an erosion of priestly authority, he said.
"I had hoped maybe we'd moved beyond that," Dougherty said.
More broadly, the reluctance to see religious brothers elected to positions of authority over priests is part of a long-simmering debate in the church over how much power a lay person may exercise. Although the Code of Canon Law specifies that the "power of governance" belongs to priests because of the connection with the sacrament of holy orders, a 1983 revision to the code also says that laity may "cooperate in the exercise of this power."
Exactly what the nature, and the limits, of that cooperation are remain somewhat ill-defined, according to many canon law experts. It's a question with implications not just for religious life, but for many other questions in the church – for example, the role of a lay administrator in a priestless parish.
In a 2007 essay, Vincentian Fr. Paul Golden, a former president of the Canon Law Society of America, described the lack of precision about laity and the power of governance as "a good example of law waiting until the theological discussions have clarified the issue before a norm is made."
The Vatican's tendency towards a restrictive view of the capacity of lay persons to exercise governance is generally understood as part of an effort to preserve the distinctiveness of the ordained priesthood, which in turn is driven by a desire to foster a strong sense of Catholic identity in contrast with secularism – a task identified in 2007 by Italian Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican's number two official, as the "top priority" of the pontificate of Benedict XVI.
Maryknoll, formally called the "Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America," is a U.S.-based order focused on overseas missions, including East Asia, Latin America and Africa. The order will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its foundation in 2010.
[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
Editor's Note: Listen to Br. Wayne Fitzpatrick talk about his vocation as a brother and missionary in this video clip: Men on Fire for Mission
"The Vatican's tendency
"The Vatican's tendency towards a restrictive view of the capacity of lay persons to exercise governance is generally understood as part of an effort to preserve the distinctiveness of the ordained priesthood.."
Wow! Are folks getting tired of this yet? We have a world of such problems. We have a world in crisis, which will only deepen over the next decades. Is this really where people want to put their energy?
We grew beyond this model of 'leadership' long, long ago...
No, my dear, you and your
No, my dear, you and your comrades are the ones that have not grown. The Church has grown past the '70s, '80s, and 90's, and she will continue to move. Do you know any young Catholics excited about their faith that are saying things like this anymore? Of course not. Their issues are different.
To say that "their issues are
To say that "their issues are different" is to miss the little ole problem that their issues may well be the same when they age, develop, and mature. The assumption that young people will stay the same is so unlikely a proposition as to make a smile from anyone who has aged, developed, and matured.
What an absolutely
What an absolutely patronizing statement. You are basically suggesting the same "little ole" saying that, "Just wait till you grow up." Perhaps you're right. I'll blame "the Church" or "the Vatican" or anyone else for all my problems and be a "victim."
I just hope I won't be as bitter as most of the "aged, developed, and matured" people who have been writing comments here. A suggestion to all writing: Try honey.
Hey Anonymous on Aug. 25,
Hey Anonymous on Aug. 25, 2009.
We feed our children on honey, and curds.
But when they are grown, adults do debate
issues. And that is what this website is
for. It is not for children, with milk
on their chins---or who need
their ideas slathered with honey.
Grown-ups (as opposed to children),
have known the Vatican to be in the
past, like a fortress encircled with
a moat, high walls---and with guards
carefully screening the terrain for
the enemy.
Who was the enemy? Anyone who did not
ageee with everything and anything that
was dictated from the authorities on
high. The laity were to pay, pray and
obey---and to give over themselves to
being led by the clergy. Laity really
did not have rights.
Vatican II taught that there was no longer
to be a division between clergy (hierarchy)
and the laity. All were the people of God.
And what made them equal was BAPTISM---it
was a radical view---but it was approved
by fathers of Vatican II. This was found
in the document "Lumen Gentium" and it was
approved by a vote of 2,151 to 5!
This was a document that was well written,
well researched and documented. It was
argued by the council from the first day
that it was introduced to the day of its
passage. It stated among other things
that, the Church is the whole People of
God, including but not identical with
its hierarchy alone.
But since the pontificates of JP II and
Benedict XVI---a systematic dismantling
of this document (and other documents)
is occuring. And I suggest, that the
Pontiffs and the Curia do not have the
authority to dismantle what was voted
upon by so many. Again a vote of
2,151 approved and 5 did not. This is
not a small matter.
The Vatican today, is still not dealing with the
rapidly changing scene in the world---so it is
trying to clamp down on its religious, (male
and female), priests and lower hierarchy---bishops,
to keep them in line.
It is trying to build up the walls and ramparts
around the fortress again, in battle-mode.
The laity---it ignores---except those who have great
wealth (so what else is new here)---and attempts to
keep them at the lowest caste possible.
You don't want to grow-up bitter, Anonymous?
We are trying and have been trying to
educate people who have had sparse religious education.
They were indoctrinated in the ways and rules of the
Catholic Church. But this medieval church cannot cope with
modernity and carefully avoids letting Jesus have a say in reform.
The Vatican, many in the hierarchy and some priests think they are offering
religion to the people by fighting off the Vatican Two reforms, whereas
in reality, they are joining ranks as the anti-Christs by keeping Jesus
at a distance from his people--as seen in the proposed liturgical reforms.
Even some bishops have taken to putting themselves up as "actors---like
those performing on a stage" with their backs to the people (in whom
Jesus lives) and believing that they are calling God down from heaven.
The Trinity has been present in the people, in their hearts as they
came to worship, and with them as they begin to celebrated the Liturgy
in its sacred entirety. God is not floating around in outer space ready
to fly down, when the good bishop turns his back to the people. It is
not a secret between the bishop and Jesus---that the people shouldn't
see.
Even using terms such as “the Church militant” is an
aggressive-combative vision of the Church. It bears little resemblance
to the understanding of the human/divine love that was so central to the
teachings of Jesus. Because Jesus is a lover, there is no room for him
in the Roman militaristic system.
"Anonymous," it's curious
"Anonymous," it's curious that you would consider patronizing a comment which opens up the conversation to other possible factors involved. There is nothing bitter about what I said at all. I am not bitter about anything, nor a victim of anything--what on earth does that have to do with what I said at all?--nothing.
But, ah, in any issue comparing this and that, one needs to consider the issue of development, or aging, or maturation. It's just what you need to do.
Call it science, honey. :)
Dear "Pantocrator" Your name
Dear "Pantocrator" Your name expresses a presumption of power, the antithesis of the debate here. There are many gifts, but one body... Parishes struggle with roles of administration and pastoral ministry. Sad that what was not a problem for Maryknoll is a problem for Rome...What about “the church exists to evangelize” (Pope Paul VI Evangelii Nuntiandi) being the first priority, calling forth the gifts of the people of God being the second priority, and the worry of priests or brothers being in leadership a later consideration.
Quite the judgmental comment
Quite the judgmental comment simply because of a screen name - the antithesis of the debate here . . . .
you chose the name. you made
you chose the name.
you made it an issue for debate
We find for instance this:
"The PANCRATOR Principle By John L. Waters Aug. 2, 2005 A god can be defined as a creative person who is thereby in partnership with the mythical Creator of Everything"
But you deem yourself the pantocrator, which brings this:
"Christ Pantocrator is a conception of Jesus as the Almighty, or "Ruler of All things", and is a common depiction of Jesus in the Byzantine or Eastern Orthodox churches."
Thus in calling yourself the Almighty, you leave the door open a crack to comment, the thesis of debate. This divine appelation is never "simply" a screen name, and it is rather blasphemous to ascribe it to oneself.
I on the other hand remain the least mighty, merely
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
It's understandable
It's understandable Pantocrator,
You're correct that there is a small group of younger folks who are searching for something stable in a world that frightens them with it's dynamism. This small group wants veils and communion on the tongue and kneeling and hard and fast rules and no altar girls, etc., etc. They want something that they can read the rule book on and not be challenged.
When they grow up and are more confident in their ability to function in this world, their views will begin to change (they always do). They'll want to respond to Christ's call. A call that is challenging and radical, not a call to rigidity. Christ's message has zero to do with hand gestures and Catechisms. It has to do with being Christ to others, especially when it's most uncomfortable, out of the ordinary, and even frightening.
You'll learn and grow, and hopefully you'll continue to want to contemplate Christ's call even in dialogues like this.
Pantocrator? What young
Pantocrator? What young Catholics? look around and you will see grayheads or dyed,, died? Go see the movie 'A bridge too Far'
You obviously don't live
You obviously don't live where I do. In the American South, we have hundreds of young, active families. You could have the same - remain faithful to Church teaching.
In the American South? Are
In the American South? Are you kidding?
One possible solution. The
One possible solution. The Maryknoll brothers could split off from the Fathers and form their own, related congregation (of Brothers) where the Superior is a brother.
And the M Fathers can appoint the priest the Vatican deems suitable.
Structures do NOT have to remain unchanged for ever.
In the old days, when
In the old days, when Benedictines chose a brother as the Abbot, he was ordained a priest and then given the Abbatial Blessing by the local ordinary. I don't understand why they cannot accommodate this situation the same way. If he is a religious of some years, he should have met the canonical previsions to become a priest. If he truly is the best man for the job and was soundly elected, this would be the best path in my opinion.
There is a huge difference
There is a huge difference between the vocations to the priesthood and to the brotherhood. Each has its own integrity. To ordain a person to the presbyterate to accommodate an unfair rule is to sell out to power and erase the honor of every life vocation.
There is one Order which has
There is one Order which has a reverse situation. The Brothers of St John of God, have always had a small number of Brothers who are Priests.
This has been the situation since their foundation over 500 years ago in Spain.
However if a Brother Priest is elected at a Chapter as Superior, either as a local superior or General Superior, special permission must be sought from the Holy See before the election can be regularised. Also in order to be elected the Brother Priest must attain a 2 thirds majoriry of the ballot, compared to 50% plus 1 as required for a Brother who is not a Priest.
I have some sympathy for the
I have some sympathy for the notion of ordination being a prerequisite for the exercise of authority in a religious congregation of priests and lay brothers, and I think Peter-Noel is on track with the appropriate solution--just ordain Brother Wayne Fitzpatrick, but I would suggest he be ordained a deacon. A deacon rather that a priest only because religious brothers tend to have educations that are different from that we normally expect for priestly ordination. Deacons are clerics, and that seems to be the essential requirement for the Vatican. Problem solved, no?
Of course, by the very same Vatican logic, we would also have to immediately ordain women deacons whenever they exercise administrative authority over their fellow nuns in congregations of women. Indeed, if the Vatican figures only clerics can exercise authority in religious orders, it is scandalous that lay women (i.e. sisters) are not now ordained, since they clearly exercise senior authority within their own orders. This is a simple logical corollary of the Vatican’s position that only clerics can exercise apostolic authority within a community of vowed persons.
That female religious superiors should be at least deacons in order to do what they now do, in no way suggests women should not also be priests and bishops.
History is replete with examples of deacons exercising senior authority in the church, so much so that more than one council made a point of admonishing deacons to respect the superior liturgical dignity of the priests and bishops over whom they exercised administrative authority.
Ultimately, I would like to see the church restore the diaconate properly. I believe that would involve recognizing that one of the major roles (but not the only one) of deacons in the church is to be our bureaucrats, in the best possible sense of that term. Thus, the bishops and priests who run the Vatican ought to be deacons rather than bishops and priests, and the lay folk who now exercise authority in our parish and diocesan structures ought to be ordained deacons. Note carefully—its not that people exercising authority have to be deacons first, but rather whenever non-clerics are selected to exercise authority within a Christian community, they are automatically ordained deacon.
Implicit in this notion is the complementary notion that priests and bishops are ordained for spiritual matters--administration is deacon work. See Acts 6:1-7. The Twelve ordered the community “to select seven men of good reputation, filled with the Spirit and wisdom” and then "laid their hands on them" so the Twelve would not have "to neglect the word of God so as to give out food." Although I don't think theologians today see this passage as the institution of the diaconate, without doubt the later institution of the diaconate was heavily influenced by this passage, which uses the Greek verb from which we derive our noun "deacon."
Properly understood, implementation of the notion that the exercise of formal authority within Christian communities requires ordination doesn't mitigate against the emerging role of lay persons within our communities. It just that when someone begins exercising formal authority, we ordain then. No fuss, no muss, no prior theological training required. Selection by the community to exercise authority within the community is all that is required to cause the local bishop to lay his/her ordaining hands on the community-selected persons.
Dear Dennis. Thank you for
Dear Dennis.
Thank you for your well thought out comment on restoring the rightful place
of the deaconate in the church. If deacons could wait on tables, and care for
widows and other services to set the ordained clerics to proclain the Gospel,
give spiritual guidance, counsel, and teaching on moral and spiritual norms for the spiritual welfare and well being of the early faith communities; there is no reason why this early pattern of leadership in Scripture, cannot be restored in today's church. Furthermore the Church, the people of God, and society would all stand to gain by it. The priestly office is clearly and primarily a spiritual office exercised by priestly persons trained and qualified to minister to the spiritual needs of the church's members. As a matter of fact with the extreme shortage of ordained priests and no signs of this shortage going away, thats precisely what is needed...deacons who are ordained to administer the temporal welfare and well being of our faith communities in the Church. It appears to me that this is precisely what the Holy Spirit is signaling. It behooves all of us in the Church to listen more intensely and keenly to what the Spirit is revealing to the Church at this critical time in our history as Church,followers of Christ, and members of the One Body of Christ called to serve each according to the gifts given by the Holy Spirit to each member of the Church. We are living in the most radically changed world on all levels of life on planet earth. If the Church fails to change and adapt to the realities of the modern world, it will continue to not only lose membership, but also its' sense of mission given it by Jesus the Head of the Church, from its' inception when he said: "Go out into the whole world and Proclaim the Good News!!!
Sincerely in Christ,
Paul Yaroch, Cap.
Why the bloody he** should
Why the bloody he** should they!!!
This just perpetuates the falso hierarchical clerical myth that the ontologically favored can't be led and supervised by their alleged inferiors.
This is a crock of baloney, pure and simple.
The Catechism of the Catholic
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly that clergy especially priests, bishops, etc are ordained for three reasons.
1. To Bless and Sanctify
2. To Teach
3. To rule, (if you want to be the first you must be the last and the servant of all... Jesus' Words to His disciples) so ruling is a two edge sword but none the less essential for the good of the Holy Catholic Church.
Canon Law backs this up. For example all lay associations must have a priest as a spiritual director.
Jim, I think we have to stand
Jim, I think we have to stand back and look at this from something other than the standard angle.
A man who is not a priest has been selected by his community to exercise authority over his brothers. A good case can be made that those who exercise serious authority within a Christian community ought to benefit from the grace of sacramental ordination to assist them in the exercise of that authority.
The logical solution is to ordain the man precisely because he has been formally elected by his brothers to exercise authority over them. That’s precisely what happened in Acts 6:1ff. The community selects; the bishop ordains. The problem is not the ancient notion that those that exercise authority should be clerics--sacramentally ordained.
The problem here is simply that far less important rules about the education we normally expect of clerics are being given precedence over the profoundly more important fact that the Spirit has selected Fitzpatrick as the leader of his congregation through the prayerful votes of his brethren.
Analogously, when we are short of priests for the Eucharistic needs of the community, we should do exactly as Act 6 dictates—select some good men and woman, married or celibate, and ordain them. To deny Christians the Eucharist because we don’t have enough celibate men with the standard education is just plain stupid. The Spirit of Christ can not be happy.
As I understand the
As I understand the situation, the Brother has chosen not to become a priest, so this option - which sounds quite acceptable - is unfortunately not on the table. Priests are required to take several more vows than brothers, and it could be that this particular brother - for whatever reason - does not yet feel ready to accept those additional vows. Having chosen not to accept these further vows - and the great honor of holy orders - it is not surprising that the Vatican chooses not to grant him the authority.
.
.
I am also a little disturbed by Fr. Dougherty's statements in his acceptance of the Vatican's decree. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but it sounds as if he disagreeing with the Vatican on a fundamental issue when he said, "I had hoped maybe we'd moved beyond that." The issue at hand is not something minor that can be "moved beyond." His argument appears similar to that of the recently excommunicated priest who "ordinated" women. As a priest Fr. Dougherty should realize that he exists in a theocracy, not a democracy. God's Word is Law. We may not understand the reasons for some of its tenets, but His Law takes precedence - especially in religious matters.
.
.
If the Brother wishes to take the lead position in this order, his choice is simple: accept the sacrament of Holy Orders. Once having done so, it is all but certain that the Vatican will accept him. If he chooses to not accept the honor of Holy Orders, then he also chooses not to accept the increased responsibility of leading Maryknoll. Perhaps it is not yet his time to accept such a position. Perhaps this is God's way of saying the brother is not yet ready - or that He has something else planned for him. Or perhaps this is a test, a chance for the Brother to take that next step and accept Holy Orders. In the end we can only trust in God that the best outcome results.
N Ash Wrong. "Several more
N Ash
Wrong. "Several more vows???" There are four vows that can be taken, obedience, chastity, poverty and (rarely raken) service to the missions. Brothers can and do take them as readily as priests can and do.
Holy Orders is a Sacrament -- not a vow. It also is not a "Next Step." Each vocation has their own path and one is not less than the other.
It is that sort of blather that you espouse that has been such a major factor in the disappearing of the Brotherly Orders.
Dear Padre Pio, and so
Dear Padre Pio, and so delightful yet unusual to hear from you,
Thank you for your clarifying response here to this earlier comment:
"Priests are required to take several more vows than brothers, and it could be that this particular brother - for whatever reason - does not yet feel ready to accept those additional vows."
I had trouble counting these up until you enumerated them so well, and completed with your insightful comments, although even I might not choose "blather" as a sort (mainly because I do not understand it).
I felt "brothers" had much more vow to take, and infinitely more to keep, just keeping faithfully the few you mention. One above all takes a lifetime at least to keep.
None mention the specific wording of the Benedictine vows, inclduing stability and conversio mores.
Thanks for your intelligent remarks here.
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Your comments sounds like a
Your comments sounds like a Kindergarden kid. Grow up and if you want I could find you a good teacher, to learn how to pronounce "
Ordination of Women".
As a brother, he would not
As a brother, he would not have completed the necessary theological studies required for ordination, namely, an M.Div. degree.
Who says so? Plenty of
Who says so?
Plenty of so-called Masters of Divinity out there.
Some of them even blog here, believing ourselves such divine masters
Anonymous on Aug. 25,
Anonymous on Aug. 25, 2009.
Many lay people have Masters degrees in theology. Many priests don't
have a Master of Divinity degree.
Another poster suggested that priests take more vows than brothers.
That is not true. Both brothers and priests take three vows of
poverty, chastity and obedience.
Sorry, but wrong
Sorry, but wrong LittleBear
Brothers and Priests both have to take Obedience and Chastity - but Poverty is for the most part reserved to Religious congregations. That Diocesan priest in your parish did not take a vow of Poverty.
Dear Padre Pio, I was
Dear Padre Pio,
I was refering to members of religious orders in my comments---since this
whole blog was about a religious brother who is not acceptable to the Vatican
because he is not a priest.
I am aware that Diocesan priests do not take a vow of poverty--I work with a number of both religious and diocesan priests.
Thank you, though, for the clarification.
Not surprisingly, this entire
Not surprisingly, this entire comment is factually incorrect, with the exception that there are some lay people who hold advanced degrees in theology.
I do not know any priest who does not possess at least a M.Div. In fact, it seems a requirement in most dioceses that priests have at least an M.Div (or higher degree) before they are ordained, as it is the terminal degree at most theological seminaries.
Many priests have, in addition to the M.Div and Master degree in theology or canon law, or liturgy. Priests who graduate from the Roman universities received degrees such as license in liturgy or theology or canon law or Scripture (which is a degree higher than a Master's). Indeed, the Code of Canon Law requires that priests complete at least five years of "the curriculum of philosophical and theological studies before being ordained to the deaconate," (Can. 1032 §1). That same canon goes on to say, in §2, "after a deacon has completed the curriculum of studies" he is to be ordained a priest. Thus, since all seminaries issue at least an M.Div or higher, it is the extremely rare priest who does not hold such a terminal degree.
Also, diocesan priests do not take vows, but rather make promises. And, yes, they make different promises than those made by religious. Specifically, during the Rite of Ordination, priests promise to discharge the office of priesthood in the presbyteral order "as worthy fellow workers" of the Order of Bishops; promise to exercise the ministry of the Word "worthily and wisely", preaching the Gospel and "teaching the Catholic faith"; promise to celebrate faithfully and reverently the sacraments of the Church; promise to implore God's mercy on his people by praying constantly; promise to be more closely united to Christ the High Priest; and promise respect and obedience to his bishop and the successors of that bishop. The promise of chaste celibacy is made during the ordination to the deaconate.
Also, prior to ordination as a deacon, men make a promise or declaration of freedom (they freely choose to be ordained) and make the Profession of Faith, during whcih a seminarian soon-to-be-ordained proclaims publicly that he holds and accepts the teaching of the Scriptures, the Creed, and Tradition, in addition to the teachings of the Magisterium, are true and that he will submit his will and intellect to these teachings and never teach or preach anything to the contrary (sadly, it seems, certain priests, including some who write for this very periodical, appear to have either never meant to keep this particular promise or have publicly broken it).
Please check your sources before you presume to offer correction. It is immensely helpful to the credibility of your argument if you do so.
Excellent clarification, and
Excellent clarification, and thanks for saving me the time of writing it! :)
P.S. As a former Director of Pastoral Care, who happens to be a lay ecclesial minister, I hired, supported, and generally made personnel decisions about the priests in my department. So, there is some precedent, even if it makes some bishops nervous.
I would agree with those who say that to simply ordain the man is to avoid the larger issue, namely, whether administrative authority and sacramental duties must be related.
Blessings to those of us on the front line of ministry ... regardless of canonical status!
In other words, it's all
In other words, it's all about POWER, dressed up in and supported by some theological jargon ("apostolic succession", for instance).
Why is the Vatican trying so hard to become even more irrelevant?
And Jesus weeps again. Aldus
And Jesus weeps again.
Aldus
Another Vatican power play!
Another Vatican power play! Is anyone truly surprised?
This both makes me sad and
This both makes me sad and angry....
Wayne is a very gifted person and Maryknoll is blessed
to have him available for leadership.
Can you believe that this is 2009 and we're still
dealing with this issue!!!!
I sometimes feel that the people working at the Vatican
live on another planet...Get a life, you idiots!
We have worked and prayed for change with this issue
since I was a very young religious...No one in leadership
seems to be able to do anything!
Very frustrating and unjust!
Bro. Sean McLaughlin, SDS
Thank you Brother Sean!
Thank you Brother Sean!
I wonder how St. Francis of
I wonder how St. Francis of Assisi would be received in the Church today. Would todays Church be deprived of the Franciscans?
It would have no place for
It would have no place for him and probably call him a heretic!
It would not allow his
It would not allow his ministry and dismiss him as a heretic!
same way he was received back
same way he was received back then when he returned from sitting and praying with the Muslims. HE called such institutional rejection "perfect joy" and proceeded to tear the roof off the convent in the interest of Lady Poverty
I'll go one step beyond.
I'll go one step beyond. Jesus would have been looked upon as a radical. He would have been forbidden to preach or publish as he would be perceived as a threat to the powers in charge. Had the Vatican existed back then there would be no Christians; only pompous legal minds
a fine summary of the
a fine summary of the ministry and passion of Our Lord . . .
Hi Peter, You are very
Hi Peter,
You are very correct! Francis of Assisi was not ordained a priest.
Thankfully, Pope Innocent III was not Benny XVI---because poor
Francis would have been told that he could not lead the order
that he founded.
Is there any doubt that Rome
Is there any doubt that Rome is not interested in vocations.
Why would anyone in the laity (parents, grandparents, relatives, friends, neighbors) want to encourage thier son or daughter to be a brother or sister when they too will be second class citizens of the church as her laity but TIED to the church giving them rules which make little sense?
Why would any in this group of second-class laity encourage a relative or friend to answer a call to Catholic priesthood? Where is our 'servant' church? Our 'servant' clergy?
SO many good priests are suffering because they do not have the help they need because those who have all the help they want make rules who can be of service. Sad. Really sad. I pray for the priests who are servants.
Maybe Rome has forgotten the words of Jesus about the first being last and the last first.
Isn't it ironic that the
Isn't it ironic that the orders and congregations that are flourishing and bursting at the seams with vocations actually are obedient and loyal to the pope? HMMM...I wonder what the average age of the posters is for this article.
Isn't it ironic that the
Isn't it ironic that the orders and congregations that are flourishing and bursting at the seams with vocations actually are obedient and loyal to the pope? HMMM...I wonder what the average age of the posters is for this article is.
Hey Raquel on Aug. 26, 2009.
Hey Raquel on Aug. 26, 2009.
Check out the ages of the writers on "Young Voices" and you'll get
your answer.
Sadly, this is just one more
Sadly, this is just one more example of how the Vatican makes it plain that the only people who count in the church are the priests. It is indeed an insult to the baptismal rights of members of the body of Christ. No one in the Catholic Church enjoys full participation in the kingship, prohetic role, and priesthood of Christ other than ordained priests. The Vatican's emphasis on ordained priesthood calls into question the validity of its teaching on baptism. Alas, as in so many other ways, methinks it speaks with forked tongue.
It's always, always about the
It's always, always about the power of the clerical caste...real power doesn't come from a position.
What the heck is this crap?
What the heck is this crap? Rome should say nothing about who are superiors are. This makes me sick. This is what we mean by a clerical church.
OMG, will the pomposity of
OMG, will the pomposity of the hierarchy never cease?
Also are they the least bit concerned about the needs of the laity for what only priests are allowed to do--celebrate mass and administer the sacraments? It does seem that they don't at all mind taking up an ordained priest's time and energies with administrative tasks when he could be serving the people of God more directly. And in these times, every priest counts.
But apparently not every brother does. This is just pathetic.
Having met Brother Wayne
Having met Brother Wayne Fitzpatrick on a number of occassions in the early eighties up to March of 1986, with some continuing correspondence after that time, I can firmly attest there is none in the Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America of greater, proven ability for this position than Brother Fitzpatrick, for his great stability, intelligence and positive spirit and profound Faith.
Nevertheless, historically I found this assertion by the wonderful Mr. Allen disturbing: "Although religious brothers take vows and are generally seen as equals within their communities, under the church's canon law they are considered laity."
Perhaps only since the Second Vatican Council opened the windows to let in the Holy Spirit of God's light of love have we seen religious brothers begin to be tolerated "as equals within their communities;" for several centuries they humbly served as little more than slaves, with all insult and depreciations forgiven as spiritual formative, and continue thus in some cloistered communities despite the clear and unequivocable commandment of Our Holy Father Saint Benedict some fifteen hundred years ago to keep the priests in their place.
Priests by the Rule for Monks were not to presume any position not discerned for them for other reasons by the Abbot, who most often was not himself a priest (was Benedict of Nursia ever ordained?). Read as well the various sayings of the Desert Fathers and Mothers, our earliest anchorites, themselves most often unordained, and of their relations to priests. In one such story, for instance, when certain of the brothers would not go to join in Eucharist with a certain priest for his bad reputation, another boldly arose and demanded of them if they were dying of thirst in the desert, would they refuse to drink water drawn from a well by a leper (with all proper sanitary precautions, doubtless).
Maryknoll in any case can make no finer selection than the most capable and humble Brother Wayne, who well merits and well fills such a position of responsibility, better than any other possible, with the possible exception of course of the present President of the General Assembly of the United Nations, Maryknoll Father Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann, former editor of Maryknoll magazine.
Indeed it would be a slippery
Indeed it would be a slippery slope if a brother were permitted to be the superior in an order that includes priests. Next thing you would have a nun elected superior. Then look where we'd be! Not only would you have a lay person making decisions but also (horror of horrors) a woman. We must preserve the long tradition of clericalism that almost got lost during Vatican II.
Blessed John XIII pray for us.
Delightful response! Thank
Delightful response! Thank you for a good smile today.
What does the internal
What does the internal organization of a religious order have to do with apostolic succession?
This is an excellent question
This is an excellent question and reply dennism. The Church is apostolic through its priestly Baptism. Holly Orders makes a person no more apostolic than does Matrimony, or the other sacraments. Baptism is what is key. This is simply another power play the clergy using legalism against the Church triumvirate. Clerics will not learn until the laity stands up to them and tells them they must. Thank you for your intriguing question.
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Typical of Rome. This is one
Typical of Rome. This is one reason most religious communities of brothers did not approve ordaining brothers to the priesthood for service within the ministry...never knowing when Rome would clericalize the community leadership.
Oh, yes. Heaven forfend that
Oh, yes. Heaven forfend that a "mere" lay person should exercise any power of governance over clerics, since the clerics have done such an exemplary job of governing themselves, especially in the recent past! "The presumption in favor of a priest" indeed! Belief by the average layperson in any "ontological change" accompanying ordination went down in flames with Gilbert Gaute, James Porter, John Geoghan, Paul Shanley, and the hundreds of their nefarious "brother priests." Perhaps the Religious Order Police in the Vatican have been too busy bullying religious women to notice that the profile of the typical "lay brother" has changed radically in most orders. To veto Bro. Fitzpatrick's election is not only the height of foolishness enshrined as canon law, but another example that the clerics--at least the ones in Rome--just don't get it. What further need have we of witnesses?
Too bad. This sort of
Too bad. This sort of decision deprives the Church of its best leaders. If I recall properly, St. Francis had orders, but not to the presbyterate.
St. Francis of Assisi was
St. Francis of Assisi was ordained a deacon.
The assertion that Francis
The assertion that Francis was a deacon is at best only a conjecture. No actual historical document ever mentions him as being ordained a deacon.
Not something new. the
Not something new. the Chicago province of the Divine Word Missionaries have elected a brother to the position of the provincial in 2003, twice. This result was backed by the general council, but both times were denied by the Vatican. Thus, the runner-up took the office, which proved to be a little...... and consequently he was quickly voted out after his first 3-year term. I don't see any reason behind of the Vatican's so-doing, no logic, no thinking, but only fear. They seem as if they had harvested the whole truth in their gripps and held unto it so tightly, believing only they know where the world should be running toward. Maybe that's one of the reaons why the Holy Spirit is so forgotten in our Catholic Church.
How John Allen links the
How John Allen links the necessity of having an ordained member as Provincial superior in a "mixed" order like the Maryknollers, the Capucians, the Franciscans, the Dominicans and the Divine Word Missionaries (SVD) to the apostolic succession is totally beyond me. Over a a dozen of these "mixed" orders have long and frequently petitioned the Vatican to allow a third category of religious order which at present in law is restricted to "lay" and "clerical". We have asked for a third category of "people of God".
There is nothing in our constitutions that disallows brothers from taking leadership positions. We are societies of brothers some of whom are ordained. If Allen is correct (God forbid) that only clerics can have real authority in church bodies (with possibly some laity able to collaborate in this clerical power), then it seems to imply that women religious have never had any real authority ever.
I trust God has a good sense of humour and that in line with today's gospel (Mat 23:23-26) we concentrate on the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy and good faith.
The problem with brothers
The problem with brothers serving as superiors over priests in orders that have both priests and brothers is the issue of authority. That is the superior of an order/provice is the local ordinary for all members of the order/province. They call to orders those being ordained. I believe that part of the problem is calling someone to an order that one does not hold themselves.
That is, how can a lay person call another lay person to ordination?
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT JESUS
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT JESUS WAS A LAY PERSON AND NEVER ORDAINED the revolution is coming soon Ellen Halligan upstate new york
I think you may be a bit
I think you may be a bit mistaken. As I recall, Jesus was basically ordained when he was baptized in the river at the hands of John the Baptist. Recall, John at first refused, thinking himself unworthy to baptize the Lord - and in fact stating that he himself needed to receive baptism from Jesus, but Jesus insisted that it was necessary "... to fulfill all righteousness." The baptism was not needed to remove any sin from Jesus, rather it marked him with the authority to begin his ministry. Thus, from a certain point of view, he was indeed ordained to begin his ministry, with both the Holy Spirit and God the Father witnessing and blessing his ordination.
Interesting insight, N! And
Interesting insight, N!
And so you are saying that all of the baptized are part of the priesthood?
I believe if I so dimly recall, that you may find substantial and serious and even Roman Catholic theological treatises supporting this viewpoint . . .
Where are my Rev. Father Richard P. McBrien reference works when I need them . . .
Let's see if I've got this
Let's see if I've got this straight - Jesus was "basically" ordained by his bapism (what exactly does that mean?) but
that doesn't hold true for anybody else? Seems a little odd to me.
Post new comment