With supporters like that, who needs enemies?

Thank you for posting this update as I had no idea how sad the story of Fr. Roy had become. How hurt he must be to receive a letter like that from the likes of Levada. Why can't they invite him to discuss the situation & find some common ground like reasonable, intelligent men? His position is not logical & easily refutable but it is completely understandable considering the circles he runs in. Wouldn't it be smarter to make an advocate out of this man of passion that to try to pull rank & force obedience? This scenario is starting to resemble the sad story of St. Francis of Assisi. I will be praying for all parties involved.

Poor Father Roy, he just does not get it.

Those who have "studied" the issue do not draw his conclusions. The Magisterium, the teaching body of the Roman Catholic Church, has concluded that the priesthood shall remain male -- and very good reasons. Among them, priests are "Christs" on earth, and Jesus Christ was a male, he represents a "spiritual father". Therefore, all that priests represent are from a male point of view.

Females can be mothers, but not "fathers".

This does not make females "less" in God's eyes anymore than it makes mothers less than fathers in the family unit. Women have a role to fulfill within the Church, but it is not the priesthood.

The priesthood is not a grand prize to be obtained. It is a specific theological and spiritual role specifically for men.

I happen to believe there is an undercurrent going on within the Church trying to tear down the fabric of WHAT IS Catholicism -- one of their tactics is to attack all that is doctrinally sound within the Church, like the rogue and unratified group that calls itself "Catholics for Choice" (meaning pro-abortion). This group is completely illigitimate, yet it acts and behaves as if its actions were sanctioned.

Christ warned a long time ago that many would come in his name but would actually be wolves in sheep's clothing. The spiritually astute will recognize the whole idea of "women priests" as one of these charlatans.

As the Christian church moved from the era of the house church to the public arena of the state-funded basilica (early in the fourth century), it became less possible for women to have leadership roles. To adopt such roles in public life was so culturally unacceptable that women doing so were considered "shameful." What happened in the fourth century was a shift from ministry to governance in the sociopolitical sense of the term. Governance was the provenance of the male.

I happen to believe that it is God's will for males to govern. When we step outside of God's ordained principles, the fabric of society begins to fall apart. Look at all of the damage the lesbian leaning women's movement has done to the American culture...for starters.

The world will fall apart if women become priests? Just because you "happen" to believe something, doesn't make it true. When I was a child I happened to believe in the Easter Bunny, when I became a man I put away childish things.

God's ordained Order is not a childish thing. Read your Bible and figure out what it is, before you attempt to change it.

Tell me where in the Gospels it says that women can't be priests. I'm not changing anything- it doesn't say anything.

momof11: Do you really have 11? Wow! I agree that it would be smarter to keep someone so devoted to the cause of peace & justice within the Church. If he leaves, it will be someone else's gain. This sort of censorship is rather militaristic & unbecoming of the "universal" Church.

BirchBricker, tell ME where in the Gospels it even talks about priests, per se. It doesn't. If you think I'm going to fall for that stupid line . . . forget it.

IF you really want to understand the Catholic priesthood, you are going to have to do some SERIOUS studying onl your own. Not only will you have to READ the ENTIRE Bible and understand WHO Jesus is, BUT you will have to read up on the Early Church fathers and saints to further understand "priesthood" in its proper Christian context.

No one here is likely to spoon feed you -- you will have to READ for yourself, IF you truly desire the TRUTH on the matter. AFTER research, the Truth is only too obvious.

Actually I am a Catechist & have taught high school Catechism class for several years. I am very familiar with the Bible. I've studied the Bible, Church history (working on my degree in Middle Eastern history), the Church fathers (Athanasius, Basil , Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Irenaeus, etc.) & many of the Saints & am a big fan of St. John of the Cross & St. Theresa of Avila & the writings of Thomas Merton (not a saint, but should be). Thank you for asking.

You're right, the truth IS obvious.

If the Catholic church had it's way we would still be in the Dark Ages.

He is a dissident and should be jailed for his beliefs.....there you go another one to pick on!

This is a very interesting conversation for an outsider. It also further exemplifies my understanding. Why would I stay in a voluntary organization who's teachings/rules I don't believe? I don't understand that. That is where I see organized religion. It's all man made. I have a wonderful, personal relationship without all the rules, regulations, dogma, hypocrisy, saints and sinners. No bible, Koran, tablets, mountains, bushes (burning or otherwise)...the history is interesting but the trappings, no thanks....I glad they make your life better.

Rolandmc; excellent point.

Why do people who "claim" to be Catholics defy those who are upholding the teachings of that faith?

If someone believes in Jesus Christ as their savior, but thinks the Catholic church is caught up in an out-dated structure, they should get out of the church and join one that aligns more with their own faith.

To remain inside is to disrupt those who still hold to the faith. Why?

BB: You claim to be an expert in Catechism and even to be a high school teacher in it. Why? Why do you feel compelled to engage our youth in a trusted position when you hold such clearly anti-Catholic views? Do the parents realize that you are in fact, a wolf in sheep's clothing?

You should be ashamed. You should immediately withdraw from any role within the Catholic church and find a way to promote your own faith rather than tearing someone else's faith apart.

You are like all of those teachers in public school who think their job in life is to transform our children from their parent's cultural values, to your own. If you could feel shame, you would.

Birchbricker, and YET, even AFTER all of THAT, you Still Do Not understand that Christ was male, he is the Bridegroom of the Church (bridegrooms are male) and the priesthood is specifically for males.

I suggest you read: "Goodbye Good Men", subtitled: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church, by Michael S. Rose, and also read, "The Courage to be Catholic", subtitled, Crisis, Reform and the Future of the Church, by George Weigel.

However, these books are only the 'tip of the iceberg' when it comes to the way Liberals have SYSTEMATICALLY undermined Catholic doctrine.

Today's Catholic high schools when it comes to teaching religion classes are atrocious. I purposely did not send my son to a Catholic high school IN ORDER TO preserve his faith.

Thanks for asking.

Rt: I have left the Church.

I shold have put it "I was a Catechist"... not "am". Excuse me. I just got so sick of it all. This situation with Fr. Roy is a good example as to why I left the Church . I still have a soft spot for Catholicism, but they are not above critisism.

The saddest part of the story is when one single, simple man, picked up the cross and carried it with joy to top of calvary where many, many people could see & hear him,they happily joined him in his song of peace. They were brought before tribunals & officials of the empire yet they were not afraid to speak the truth because Father Roy was with them. Their biggest impact was on recruitment. The empire needs a steady stream of children offered up by their citizens to sacrifice on the alter of war and world domination. Today we can see that military advertising is aimed squarely at parents &grandparents, many of whom have still declined to sacrifice their children.

Father Roy is not an intellectual, indeed, only a fool would take on the US Military Industrial Complex alone & therein lies his appeal. Yet, as he has actually achieved some success & notoriety in his impossible endeavor to expose the empire to the very sheep that feed it, he has changed his campaign to one of the single most narrow academic pursuits of our time, the ordination of women by the Catholic Church. " What up, dog?" (As my kids would say). Well, as we know, each of our temptations are tailored to our own hearts. I just hope he has kept his other vows.

Now here comes lifelong bureaucrat Levada who apparently is so far removed from actual spiritual warfare that he does not even recognize what the battle is about and brings a gun to what should be a private academic debate. This is a follower of Christ?

Sadness abounds. The loss of the sacraments at this point in Father Roy' life is just heartbreaking.

It is sad. It seems that all to often the Bishops offices appear to be very distant & far removed from the struggles on the street. They seem to care less & less about the spiritual well being of their flock & would rather pander to the lowest common political denominator. They aught to busy themselves with the bigger issues that plague our society instead of worrying about the letter of the law. The Priests, Brothers, & Sisters work so hard tempering the many problems that seem to stem from an unjust society that it's awfully petty to concern ones self with legalistic squabbles that have absolutely no impact on the bigger battles of the spiritual life.

Quick & absolute punishment will not help the Church to grow forward in any way. It sets Her back into an Inquisitional state of being & tends to hinder rather than help.

BirchBricker, you have a strong sense of social justice but you do not seem to understand the structure of Catholicism. The two are not incompatible. The fact that you find the structure of Catholicism so hard to accept tells me that you are not a "Catholic" at heart, you are a protestant.

I tend to agree with Rational Thinker.

If you are not happy with Catholicism you should leave and find that place that suits you. But to work from the inside to change fundamental structure, doctrine and ideology of a 2000 year old institution is futile.

Those of us who are happy being Catholic are here for the very reasons that you protest. Theologically, the structure of the priesthood fits very nicely with the revealed Word of God, up through and including the Book of Revelation. It is only modern secularism, which finds its roots in atheism, that promotes the idea that equality means sameness.

But equality has never really meant "sameness". It just means equal dignity in God's eyes. However, different roles. Remember, He made them "male and female". I would prefer to see a married priesthood before a 'females included' priesthood, as far as that goes. And yet, celibate priests play a very important role within the Church. There will always be celibate priests within the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II assured us of that, and Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed it.

Conservative Catholic theologians led by the Congregation for Doctrine (formerly the Office of the Holy Inquisition) in Rome, maintain that while the other restrictions placed on women in the past were due to prevailing social prejudice, the ban on ordaining women as priests belongs to unchangeable Catholic doctrine. “Jesus Christ himself excluded women from the priesthood and the Church has always followed his example by never ordaining women.” Nonsense.

It is clear from the Gospels and non-canonical early Christian writings that Jesus considered women and men equals. The gospels, written toward the last quarter of the first century CE, acknowledge that women were among Jesus' earliest followers. From the beginning, Jewish women disciples, including Mary of Magdala, Joanna, Salome and Susanna accompanied Jesus during his ministry and supported him out of their private means (Luke 8:1-3). Jesus spoke to women both in public and in private, and indeed he learned from them. The apocryphal gospel of Philip indicates Miriam was Jesus 'chief disciple. According to one story, an unnamed Gentile woman taught Jesus that the ministry of God is not limited to particular groups and persons, but belongs to all who have faith (Mark 7:24-30; Matthew 15:21-28).

In his letters, Paul of Tarsus greets Prisca, Junia, Julia, and Nereus' sister, who worked and traveled as missionaries (Romans 16:3, 7, 15). He mentions that Prisca and her husband risked their lives to save his. He praises Junia as a prominent apostle, who had been imprisoned for her labors. Mary and Persis are commended for their hard work (Romans 16:6, 12). Euodia and Syntyche are called his fellow-workers in the gospel (Philippians 4:2-3). Here is clear evidence of women apostles active in the earliest work of spreading the Christian message. Paul tells of women who were the leaders of churches (Apphia in Philemon 2; Prisca in I Corinthians 16:19). This practice is confirmed by other texts that also mention women who headed churches in their homes, such as Lydia of Thyatira (Acts 16:15) and Nympha of Laodicea (Colossians 4:15).

Women held church offices and played significant roles in group worship. Paul greets a deacon named Phoebe (Romans 16:1) and assumes that women are praying and prophesying during worship (I Corinthians 11). As prophets, women's roles would have included not only ecstatic public speech, but preaching, teaching, leading prayer, and perhaps even conducting the eucharist meal. (A later first century work, called the Didache, assumes that this duty fell regularly to Christian prophets.) Eventually, every variety of ancient Christianity that advocated the legitimacy of women's leadership was eventually declared heretical, and evidence of women's early leadership roles was erased or suppressed.

Greek philosophy considered each woman to be an incomplete male. Under Roman law, which was adopted by Christianity, women could not hold public office, so how could women be given the leadership role implied in the priesthood?

Also, women were considered to be in a state of punishment for original sin. Women were held responsible for bringing original sin into the world, and for being a continuing source of seduction. How could such sinful creatures be channels of God’s grace? Women were considered ritually unclean because of their monthly periods. How could women be allowed to defile the holiness of the church building, the sanctuary and especially the altar?

Of the mainstream Christian denominations, only the Episcopal Church ordains female as well as male priests and blesses same gender marriages.

Again, Equality does not mean Sameness. It means equality dignity, different ROLES.

God created males and females, cats and dogs, land and sea.

Should cats be offended that they cannot be dogs? Equal dignity, different roles.

These are God's rules and concepts, Skeptic, take it up with Him.

ezk317: Please leave my religion out of this. I am not a Protestant, believe that. To be honest, I thought you were. This post isn't about me, it's about Fr. Roy & the problem he & many other Catholics have with the Church. Many of my family & friends are Catholic & they agree with a lot of what Fr. Roy says in his letter. You, nor the Church has a monopoly on the TRUTH. Get over it & get off of me, please.

Sorry, Zeke. He's your god; they're your rules.

-

BB: Your path is your own; only you can walk it. No one else can tell you how, and no one else may walk it for you. The Rig Veda says: "Truth is one; the wise call it by many names."

Nosce te ipsum.

Ad maiorem dei gloriam

Because Allah'u'abha

BB: Traditionally, Protestants are those who "protest" Catholic teaching and doctrine. They are those who have "issues" with the Church to the degree that they cannot accept what the Church teaches. These people should LEAVE. But why do they not?

Pope John Paul II asked the same thing on his visit to the Los Angeles diocese back in the 1980s.

I surmise that they do not Leave because they wish to Change the Church at a fundamental level, but it simply will not happen because the Holy Spirit is the author of what Catholicism teaches. Maybe you should get over yourself and finally submit your will to the Will of God -- do ya think?

Skeptic: Like it or not, God is Lord over all, believers and unbelievers alike.

ezk317,

Whoa there, Zeke. That's some bad history. Bad theology, too.

"God is Lord over all, believers and unbelievers?" What kind of silly monotheistic solipsism is that? It's a charming myth, but hardly original. It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in your Christianity are fear, conceit and hatred. The purpose of your faith, one may say, is to give an air of respectability to these unhealthy passions.

But if you believe it, isn't that enough? Must you attempt to force your beliefs on others?

Isn't it enough to admire the beauty of the garden without having to believe that there are invisible fairies living in it, too? Gnothi Seauton.

Skeptikistis Apostatis

BB: Salve! You are Societas Iesu, are you not? Collegio del Gesù? I'm a huge fan.

Some men must show everyone else to be wrong... those men, hating to be wrong, turn around & show someone else to to be wrong... those men... etc... Where is the love,mercy, & compassion?

Teach us, Good Lord,

To Serve Thee as Thou deservest;

To give and not to count the cost;

To fight and not to heed the wounds;

To labor and not to ask for any reward,

save that of knowing that we do Thy will.

Through Jesus Christ Our Lord, Amen.

-St. Ignatius of Loyola

"Commune hoc ignorantiae vitium est: quae nescias, nequicquam esse profiteri." (Leon Battista Alberti: De Re Aedificatoria, VI,2)

Pax vobiscum.

Yeah, the scary thing is that it's communi consilio.

Skeptic, it is easy to see that you are a moral relativist. And good luck with that dead philosophy.

Pope Benedict XVI has prayed that we would not succumb to the "dictatorship of moral relativism".

Of course, you are familiar with its fruitless mantra: 'That may be good for you, but not for me, I see things differently.'

Truth is Absolute -- and Jesus Christ is Living Proof of it.

Call me names, and attempt an amateur psychoanalysis of my postings, BUT, the Truth is still the Truth, no matter how much denied by modern secular humanism.

"Grant that we may be one flock and one shepherd. Do not allow your net to be torn, help us to be servants of unity." - Pope Benedict XVI

BB: Not to belabor the point, but ONLY the Truth Unites any us.

Our Unity will be based on Truth, more prescisely, The Way, The Truth and The Life -- Jesus Christ.

Zeke,

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. And I make it a point to never trust anyone who knows intimately what God wants for other people.

Some will not be satisfied until they've become civilized medicine men & God is their servant. Though God is terrible in His own right... He will respect their sorcery. They become not lovers of God but rather, haters of other men. Deus Caritas Est.

Skeptic and BB: you are the 'experts' on hate, I prefer God's way, Love.

BB: By the way, 'Father Roy and others' (as you put it) are not the first to have "problems" with the Catholic Church, per se.

Some of the first to walk completely away from it were those listening to Jesus Christ preach to his small band of disciples, he said (paraphrased): "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you shall not have life within you."

It has been well noted that he did not immediately 'qualify' his statement by saying he was referring to his 'spiritual body and blood.' No, he simply said to them, "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you shall not have life within you."

At that, MANY left. The true believers stayed.

Consuming blood was - and still is - anathema for any Jew. Yeshua would never have said such a thing, much less encouraged others to engage in it.

Use the brain God gave you.

The admonition to drink blood (which is not in the "sayings" gospels of "Q" or Thomas) is an obvious redaction, putatively dated to the mid-to late-second century. The Rylands Papyrus fragment P52 is the earliest copy of John extant, and it dates from circa 125 to 160 CE.

In any case, the John gospel is called the "spiritual gospel" precisely because it renders Jesus in symbolic ways that depart sharply from the other three gospels. It is also intentionally antisemitic. Ritual vampirism and cannibalism have always been condemned by Abrahamic faiths and by sane people as well, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation notwithstanding.

To sacrifice our rationality on the altar of ignorance while proclaiming, "Deus Vult!" has always been premature and it remains premature today.

Truth becomes hate speech to those who have something to hide.

This bread signifies the heavenly food and divine perfections. So, "If any man eateth of this bread" means if any man acquires heavenly bounty, receives the divine light, or partakes of Christ's perfections, he thereby gains everlasting life. The blood also signifies the spirit of life and the divine perfections, the lordly splendor and eternal bounty. For all the members of the body gain vital substance from the circulation of the blood.

It is evident that the bread of which the disciples ate and were filled was the heavenly bounty; for in verse 33 of the same chapter it is said: "For the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." It is clear that the body of Christ did not descend from heaven, but it came from the womb of Mary; and that which descended from the heaven of God was the spirit of Christ. As the Jews thought that Christ spoke of His body, they made objections, for it is said in the 42nd verse of the same chapter: "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we  98  know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?"

The disciples had taken many meals from the hand of Christ; why was the last supper distinguished from the others? It is evident that the heavenly bread did not signify this material bread, but rather the divine nourishment of the spiritual body of Christ, the divine graces and heavenly perfections of which His disciples partook, and with which they became filled.

In the same way, reflect that when Christ blessed the bread and gave it to His disciples, saying, "This is My body,"[1] and gave grace to them, He was with them in person, in presence, and form. He was not transformed into bread and wine; if He had been turned into bread and wine, He could not have remained with the disciples in body, in person and in presence.

[1 Matt. 26:26.]

Then it is clear that the bread and wine were symbols which signified: I have given you My bounties and perfections, and when you have received this bounty, you have gained eternal life and have partaken of your share and your portion of the heavenly nourishment.

-Abdul Baha (Some Answered Questions Pg. 98)

Neither one of you are credible anymore at this point, you DEFY what is directly written in the Bible, choosing your own wisdom over God's. There is no point in THIS conversation continuing, enjoy your UNREAL world.

It appears that Fr. Bourgeois has been excommunicated latae sententiae from the Catholic Church effective December 10, 2008. Below is the letter Fr. Bourgeois sent to the Vatican after receiving the threat:

---

TO THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, THE VATICAN

I was very saddened by your letter dated October 21, 2008, giving me 30 days to recant my belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in our Church, or I will be excommunicated.

I have been a Catholic priest for 36 years and have a deep love for my Church and ministry.

When I was a young man in the military, I felt God was calling me to the priesthood. I entered Maryknoll and was ordained in 1972.

Over the years I have met a number of women in our Church who, like me, feel called by God to the priesthood. You, our Church leaders at the Vatican, tell us that women cannot be ordained.

With all due respect, I believe our Catholic Church’s teaching on this issue is wrong and does not stand up to scrutiny. A 1976 report by the Pontifical Biblical Commission supports the research of Scripture scholars, canon lawyers and many faithful Catholics who have studied and pondered the Scriptures and have concluded that there is no justification in the Bible for excluding women from the priesthood.

As people of faith, we profess that the invitation to the ministry of priesthood comes from God. We profess that God is the Source of life and created men and women of equal stature and dignity. The current Catholic Church doctrine on the ordination of women implies our loving and all-powerful God, Creator of heaven and earth, somehow cannot empower a woman to be a priest.

Women in our Church are telling us that God is calling them to the priesthood. Who are we, as men, to say to women, “Our call is valid, but yours is not.” Who are we to tamper with God’s call?

Sexism, like racism, is a sin. And no matter how hard or how long we may try to justify discrimination, in the end, it is always immoral.

Hundreds of Catholic churches in the U.S. are closing because of a shortage of priests. Yet there are hundreds of committed and prophetic women telling us that God is calling them to serve our Church as priests.

If we are to have a vibrant, healthy Church rooted in the teachings of our Savior, we need the faith, wisdom, experience, compassion and courage of women in the priesthood.

Conscience is very sacred. Conscience gives us a sense of right and wrong and urges us to do the right thing. Conscience is what compelled Franz Jagerstatter, a humble Austrian farmer, husband and father of four young children, to refuse to join Hitler’s army, which led to his execution. Conscience is what compelled Rosa Parks to say she could no longer sit in the back of the bus. Conscience is what compels women in our Church to say they cannot be silent and deny their call from God to the priesthood. Conscience is what compelled my dear mother and father, now 95, to always strive to do the right things as faithful Catholics raising four children. And after much prayer, reflection and discernment, it is my conscience that compels me to do the right thing. I cannot recant my belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in our Church.

Working and struggling for peace and justice are an integral part of our faith. For this reason, I speak out against the war in Iraq. And for the last eighteen years, I have been speaking out against the atrocities and suffering caused by the School of the Americas (SOA). Eight years ago, while in Rome for a conference on peace and justice, I was invited to speak about the SOA on Vatican Radio. During the interview, I stated that I could not address the injustice of the SOA and remain silent about injustice in my Church. I ended the interview by saying, “There will never be justice in the Catholic Church until women can be ordained.” I remain committed to this belief today.

Having an all male clergy implies that men are worthy to be Catholic priests, but women are not.

According to USA TODAY (Feb. 28, 2008) in the United States alone, nearly 5,000 Catholic priests have sexually abused more than 12,000 children. Many bishops, aware of the abuse, remained silent. These priests and bishops were not excommunicated. Yet the women in our Church who are called by God and are ordained to serve God’s people, and the priests and bishops who support them, are excommunicated.

Silence is the voice of complicity. Therefore, I call on all Catholics, fellow priests, bishops, Pope Benedict XVI and all Church leaders at the Vatican, to speak loudly on this grave injustice of excluding women from the priesthood.

Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador was assassinated because of his defense of the oppressed. He said, “Let those who have a voice, speak out for the voiceless.”

Our loving God has given us a voice. Let us speak clearly and boldly and walk in solidarity as Jesus would, with the women in our Church who are being called by God to the priesthood.

In Peace and Justice,

Rev. Roy Bourgeois, M.M.

As an excommunicated Catholic, Fr. Bourgeois has joined some interesting company:

-Martin Luther

-John Donne

-Gov. Sarah Palin

-Sinead O'Connor,

-Juan Peron

-Fidel Castro

-Joe DiMaggio

-Galileo

-Theodosius, Byzantine Emperor

-King Henry II of England

-Emperor Henry IV of Germany

-King John of England

-Napoleon Bonaparte

-Miguel de Cervantes

-Henry of Navarre

-Henry VIII of England

-Elizabeth I of England

-Charles d'Amboise

-Every citizen of the Republic of Venice

-Girolamo Savonarola

-Jan Hus

-William of Ockham

-Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor

-Robert the Bruce (along with his supporters and the rest of Scotland)

-Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor (excommunicated in 1227, rescinded in 1231, excommunicated again in 1239)

As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Holy Inquisition) Joseph Alois Cardinal Ratzinger excommunicated seven women and silenced priests who did not assent irrevocably to his absolutism. The former Inquisitor now styles himself Pope Benedict XVI.

Curae pii Diis sunt.

Sarah Palin is an excommunicated Catholic? Really? Wow. It makes me sad to know that Fr. Roy has been excommunicated. That's a shame.

According to the McCain campaign, Sarah Palin was baptized as a Catholic. Her abandonment of Catholicism and subsequent attendance at other churches that question Catholic orthodoxy fits this definition of heresy:

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same ..."

According to the website of the Global Catholic Network, "once a person willingly repudiates Christ, embraces a heresy, knowing it to be contrary to divine and Catholic faith, or refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff (or communion with the members of the Church subject to him), by virtue of the law itself they are automatically excommunicated (latae sententiae). No ecclesiastical act is necessary and no public notice."

Sinead O'Connor, too.

Zeke,

Does this mean you'll be taking your toys and going home now?

BB: VP-Elect Joe Biden is also perilously close to endangering his immortal soul by being declared excommunicate. Joe is a lapsed Catholic who has been berated by 'Ratzi the ex-Nazi' for failing to draft or endorse legislation to outlaw abortion in the USA. But mercifully, Joe has not been formally excommunicated yet.

In his infallible wisdom, the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, has instructed all Catholics everywhere to deny poor Joe the sacrament of holy communion. Tough break, Joe.

"Maledictus et anathematizamus huncvel os furems, vel huncvel os malefactorems, et a liminibus sanctae Dei ecclesiae sequestramus ut aeternis suppliciis excruciandus veli, mancipeturn, cum Dathan et Abiram, et cum his qui dixerunt Domino Deo, ‘recede a nobis, scientiam viarum tuarum nolumus" Amen. (from: Textus Roffensis; the Anathema of Ernulf)

No, skeptic, I can only hope that more 'wolves' in sheep's clothing realize their dissidence and disbelief has already automatically excommunicated them from the Catholic Church, no action by the bishop is necessary. The Catechism attests to this.

Who cares?

Who cares what the catechism says? Most of the world is not Catholic or even Christian.

-

Dead babies who never were baptized

Mackerel snappers are hasty to chastise

Is there Limbo or not?

What preposterous thoughts

Debated by men who grope child thighs.

Skeptic, apparently, Father Roy "claims" to care what the Catechism says. He claims he still is Catholic (even though officially excommunicated). Every authentic Catholic knows you are not really Catholic if you do not ascribe to the teachings of the Church as outlined in the Catechism.