Breaking: Archbishop Burke excommunicates priestettes

UPDATE: Speaking of Dr. Ed Peters, as I do below, he has some commentary on the "In The Light of the Law" blog about Archbishop Burke's decision.

Saint Louis Catholic has the goods:

Archbishop Burke has declared the excommunications of would-be priestesses Rose Hudson and Elsie McGrath, and also of pretend-bishop Patricia Fresen.

This decree, linked here [PDF file], declares as follows:

1) that McGrath, Hudson and Fresen have incurred the censure of excommunication latae sententiae for the crime of schism (cann. 1331, 1364 s. 1);

2) that upon McGrath, Hudson and Fresen is imposed the ferendae sententiae censure of interdict for the crime of pertinacious rejection of a truth of the faith after admonition by the Ordinary (can. 1371, para. 1); and,

3) that upon Fresen is imposed the ferendae sententiae censure of excommunication for the crime of simulation of the sacrament of Holy Orders (can. 1379).

Read the entire post, which has helpful definitions.

Many in the MSM, I'm certain, will try to turn the priestettes in question into warm, cuddly victims who merely want to fulfill the call that God has supposedly given them, but who are now being persecuted and demonized by nasty, mean male bishops. In which case, you might want to learn a bit more about what excommunication is about. My 2006 interview with canon lawyer Dr. Ed Peters should be helpful:

IgnatiusInsight.com: Do you have a simple definition of "excommunication"?

Peters: Yes. Excommunication is the most serious censure the Catholic Church imposes on her members. Excommunication has roots deep in ecclesiastical history, and it is still applied, in fact increasingly applied, today. But it's more than a penalty for past actions; it's really an urgent call to reform one's conduct in the future. Excommunication is classified as a "medicinal penalty" by the Church precisely because its main purpose is to bring about reform in the individual. Having certain actions punished by excommunication demonstrates that certain actions are gravely wrong in themselves and cause deep harm both to their perpetrators and to others.

Read the entire interview. Also:

• Women and the Priesthood: A Theological Reflection | Jean Galot, S.J.
• A Jesuit argues that the Church needs priestettes (Jan. 30, 2008)
• A report on the Priestette and her fake "Mass" (Nov. 19, 2007)
• Can priestettes understand simple English? (Sept. 28, 2007)

Comments

[MMajor Fan]

They can strew herbs, wave crystals and have a custom made "Don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out" ceremony.

[LJ]

Perhaps those priestettes might find it useful to study the life of Padre Pio. The concept they are missing, admittedly an unpopular one these days, is obedience.
Padre Pio was in the right and his ordinary was misinformed, yet still he obeyed. A great example for us all.

[rd]

LJ: i see your point, but what if a superior or ordinary commands one to commit sin?

[Susan Davis]

Obedience isn't blind and unconditional. A subordinate is morally obliged to not obey the superior who orders him to commit a sinful act.

[Sandra Miesel]

Too bad they don't do it with bell, book, and candle any more. Or bar the excommunicates from setting foot in a church.

Think of the excommunicates' future earnings on the speaker circuit. Catholic institutions will be falling all over themselves to invite them.

[Ed Peters]

Sandra's has a long Lent. She's in a baaaaad mood today. :)

[Carl Olson]

Obedience isn't blind and unconditional. A subordinate is morally obliged to not obey the superior who orders him to commit a sinful act.

And that sinful act in this case is...what?

[Susan Davis]

Carl, I was responding to rd's comment in a general way; I didn't say--and don't think--that the superior or ordinary commanded anyone to sin. I agree that mindful obedience is sadly missing in the actions of these self-styled "priests."

[Carl Olson]

Susan: Oops! I missed rd's question; your remark makes complete sense now. Thanks!

[Ed Peters]

There were two more excommunications in St.L today, related to the Polish (former) Parish debacle. See http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw_excomm.htm.

I like AmericanPapist's quip on same: "It look like somebody decided to clear his desk for Easter."

[LJ]

Susan,

Agreed, as you say, in a general way or as a moral abstract.
However, two things.
I think that we have pushed that envelope about as far as it can go. In reality, the odds of finding ourselves in the circumstance, whether as a lay person (extremely unlikely) or even as a religious or priest, that our ordinary orders us directly to commit a sin are way out there. Our pre-occupation with such things I think is a bi-product of the "go-with-your-conscience" part of the spirit of Vatican II directly on the heels of Humanae Vitae. Why are we so anxious about such a possibility? Perhaps on the very orthodox side of the Church there are some fears, fuelled by critiques of the actions of certain, shall we say, theologically liberal Bishops, that there may be a compulsion to participate in liturgical antics that border on the sacrilegious.

The other point is that our North American culture, for whatever reason, has a high degree of radical individualism that shows itself in rebellion at every level. It is glorified in almost all forms of entertainment media and to a significant degree it has permeated the Church. Just the fact that these excummunicated individuals went ahead and did what they did, truculently defying what they know to be Church dogma shows a fundamental lack of respect for authority. They did not even have the decency or honesty to make the hard decision to leave and find a theologically compatible home. Instead they have this feminist methodology that has worked quite well in the secular world which could be summed up as "defy them, take control, stick it up their nose, and they will finally back off." I think they genuinely see themselves as heroic. They haven't the guts to start something new, their own way, but would rather tear down what they don't like and try to make it over in their own image.

The point about Padre Pio is the same as what came up in Raymond Arroyo's biography of Mother Angelica. She found herself at odds with the local ordinary at one time, but was submissive to his authority, even though she was thoroughly convinced that what she was doing was right. But nowhere was she directed to commit sin. Being directed to commit a sin is a far cry from issues of power that are normally at the heart of these struggles. And it is true there have been Bishops that have used their authority just for the sake of making sure those who are subject to it are well aware of it. But even in that circumstance, it is not our option to defy that authority, difficult as it may be.

The truth of the matter is that we live in a culture that defies authority at the slightest pretext, and there are few of us who could obey without rancor or pushing back when we are convinced that we are right.

[M. Jordan Lichens]

Cool, why can't Portland jump on the bandwagon?