Roy Bourgeois, aka Jimmy Carter with a Roman collar

And one question, among others, is: should Bourgeois be wearing that collar?

Gary Stern, the excellent religion reporter for Journal News, provides an update on the latest actions and outrageous remarks of Fr. Roy Bourgeois:

Every couple of weeks, someone asks me whatever became of Father Roy Bourgeois, the Maryknoll priest.

They usually want to know: "Was he excommunicated?"

The answer seems to be "not yet." But 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.

The Vatican, ummm, might not take kindly to the comparison.

Stern goes on to report that Bourgeois insists, "I continue to be a Catholic priest in good standing." He seems to be either unaware of what is going on, or is openly thumbing his nose at his superiors:

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."

For his part, Bourgeois clearly relishes playing pseudo-martyr and faux prophet:

He is actually more adamant than ever about the need to ordain women as priests.

"The exclusion of women is a grave injustice and a sin," the 70-year-old priest told me. "This is a movement whose time has come. It's not going away."

A sin. Strong words from a guy walking an ecclesiastical plank.

Exactly right. But, it's fair to ask, why wouldn't Bourgeois continue to act this way? Little to nothing seems to happening as far as discipline, and if something does happen (i.e., he is disciplined by the Vatican), he will undoubtedly milk it for all it is worth, presenting himself as a victim of patriarchal intolerance and what he calls "outdated sexism." Bourgeois, like Jimmy Carter, is a particular and pathetic sort of political parasite, a man whose entire reputation is based on tearing down and clawing at the very thing that gives him any sort of moral or religious standing (in the case of Carter, it's a double-whammy, since he has long played this game with both the United States and Evangelical Protestantism).

To me, this is like a man who continually belittles and publicly attacks his wife for all sorts of real or perceived flaws while making a living as a speaker at marriage conferences and a counselor for husbands seeking to save their marriages. If Bourgeois really believes the Catholic Church is as evil and unjust, then he is either a hypocrite for playing the "priest in good standing" card, or a shameless and self-serving subversive. Or perhaps a bit of both.

Stern, by the way, does a nice job of letting Bourgeois hang himself, concluding with this understated but knowing sentence: "His days as a priest in good standing appear to be running out."

Comments

[Prayer needed]

Another one to pray for in the Year of the Priest.

[Todd]

Actually, Carl, I don't see Fr Roy's public statements as being self-focused at all. He seems to stick with the issues, And he's Still at Ft Benning. I would expect the secular reporter to fish for conflict with the Church. Conflict sells more than principles, after all.

What's curious is your name-calling here. What purpose does it serve to flirt with Mt 5:22? Can the news story be reported and commentary offered without bile?

[Carl E. Olson]

Todd, the Defender of Dissenters:

I don't see Fr Roy's public statements as being self-focused at all

He says: "My God, my conscience, are compelling me to say I cannot recant." Yeah, it's not about him at all. LOL.

He seems to stick with the issues...

Which includes the alleged sinfulness of the Church for not ordaining women: "The exclusion of women is a grave injustice and a sin," the 70-year-old priest told me. "This is a movement whose time has come. It's not going away." That issue has been settled. Done. Over. The ship has sailed. Good night. Over and out.

Conflict sells more than principles, after all.

Since when is public dissent from Magisterial teaching a matter of "principles"?

What's curious is your name-calling here

Why? Because calling a spade a spade is impolite? The fact is, he is a heretic, as a reading of CCC 2089 makes clear.

It's very telling that you would rather attempt (in ridiculous fashion, as usual) to chastise me for highlighting the public heresies of Bourgeois (see Spiritual Work of Mercy, #3) than to honestly address his scandalous denunciation of the Church and her clear teachings.

Can the news story be reported and commentary offered without bile?

Can you ever post a comment without twisting, misrepresenting, or skewing what someone else has said?

[Todd]

Carl, my post was more about a criticism of you, rather than a defense of Fr Bourgeois. Sometimes when you try to hit the broadside of a barn, the shot sails into the hay field instead.

"Why? Because calling a spade a spade is impolite?"

No, because calling people "victims" or "pathetic" or "parasites" is your opinion, not borne out by either this particular interview, or really by history. I think a political case can be made against Bourgeois, President Carter, and certainly an abusive husband. Maybe a heretical one, too. I'm pointing out for your readers that your methods are not an effective way to do internet journalism, or even opinion pieces.

"Can you ever post a comment without twisting, misrepresenting, or skewing what someone else has said?"

Pot, kettle, black, my friend.

I think it's possible, even desirable, to confirm one's assessment that a public figure is at odds with church teaching. Pretty much everybody who reads your site knows that. When you deviate from simple truth-telling, presenting your personal feelings as part of an ecclesiastical case, it's not a matter of being impolite (your word) but impertinent. All I'm suggesting is that you stick with the facts. Comment all you like, but the name-calling tends to minimize your argument.

[achilles]

Carl, good rebuttal to todd. Linear diverson to the exclusion of the whole is a neccessary tactic for the unclutivated mind.
Chesterton tells us about arguing with the insane in Orthodoxy.

Thanks for all you do, Achilles.

[Carl E. Olson]

I think it's possible, even desirable, to confirm one's assessment that a public figure is at odds with church teaching.

1. His superiors say so, as Stern's article documents.
2. He says so. Ditto.
3. He supports the ordination of women. Hardly a secret.
4. He has attended such an ordination in support of it, apparently (according to National Catholic Reporter), "concelebrating" at that event.
5. Because of the above, he received a canonical warning from the CDF.

All I'm suggesting is that you stick with the facts.

Exactly what else is required?

[David Deavel]

Carl, your points were right on. Figures like Bourgeois are parasitic on the institution that gives them a name in the first place. When the wind has passed over them they are no more and their place acknowledges them no longer. Thus the desperate attempts to keep their own wind blowing in the opposite direction.

[Jackson]

"I'm pointing out for your readers that your methods are not an effective way to do internet journalism, or even opinion pieces."

This reader finds his methods quite effective, and doesn't want or need your guidance.

[Rev. Don Blickhan]

When I lived for three years in Columbus, Ga, where Fr. Roy Bourgeois also resided, I met almost weekly with the other priests in town. Fr. Bourgeois never gathered with us and never helped in the parishes nor other ministry in town. Rather he was wrapped up in his "causes." In one of his protests on Fort Benning he assaulted a young Military Policeman and served time in Federal Prison for that offense. It is a strange vision of priesthood and church that he follows.