Jesuit-run university to host lecture by excommunicated, laicized priest

I saw that, but then I looked at the schedule on the SCU web site and the lecture titles:

scu.edu/ethics/conscience/

Helen Alvare is speaking on “Catholic feminism” on Feb. 6, perhaps the reporter confused Mr. Bourgeois’ lecture subject with hers.

Well the Church doesn’t put quotes on Social Justice. When you do, it seems like nothing more than a thinly veiled shot at the fringe interpretation of the term.

As others have mentioned, the lecture by Roy Bourgeois is titled:
*The Struggle for Peace and Justice: A Story of Conscience and Its Consequences *

The description of the lecture indicates that the topic of women’s ordination to the Catholic priesthood is likely to be discussed, although not as the sole topic. Here is the description:

Bourgeois has been a prominent voice of conscience within Catholicism for decades. He was profoundly affected by the Vietnam War. In 1972, he was ordained a Maryknoll priest. He then worked among the poor of Bolivia until he was kicked out of the country by its then dictator. Bourgeois was instrumental in founding the School of Americas Watch, an organization dedicated to shutting down the United States Army’s School of the Americas because of the school’s alleged training in techniques of repression of many officers of foreign military services. In 2012, he was dismissed by the Vatican from the Maryknoll order because of his support for the ordination of women as priests in the Roman Catholic Church.
scu.edu/visitors/lectures.cfm?sched=54784

I stand corrected. Thanks.

Sounds okay to me. Wouldn’t you be dismayed if you went to a Catholic school or university and they only championed the politically correct issues, and were silent on the ones that contrast with the politically correct notions social justice? I’ve seen it happen plenty.

Good point. Nonetheless, even old people get confused and see associations as endorsements. Given what the disciples tell us we should run far away from that mischief.

You mean some folks will be selfish in order to look good in front of their non-Catholic friends and other favorite people thinking that they can serve both God and mammon?

Or (in addition) to that they will score all kinds of brownie points for doing nothing much but voting liberal every so often?

Nooooooo…reallly? :rolleyes:

If all that was true, then there would be no shortage of Klansmen invited to speak at our universities. Would it not be wrong to give them an open channel of communication to our students?

That’s not quite what I meant. Whatever happened to presumption of innocence? :smiley:

I was trying to explain the quote marks to another poster.

I think characterizing all Catholics concerned about “social justice” (there go the quote marks again!) as selfish people who vote liberal is a tad unfair. There are plenty of Roman Catholics who have not dissented from Church teaching, do not vote liberal, but try to work for social justice in an authentically Catholic way. (My father, and the Missionaries of Charity in my town, would be real-life examples.) :slight_smile:

It’s true that, in some parts of the West (particularly America), “social justice” has become synonymous with “dissenting Catholic” (or even “Obama Catholic” if you will), but this is simply not true of large parts of the world where “social justice” issues often confront us on our very doorsteps. Most Indian Catholics simply don’t care about gay marriage or women’s ordination, while issues such as poverty and lack of access to education are realities. I was simply trying to make this distinction.

Perhaps am wrong in saying this, but I really don’t think a Klansman (who belongs to an organize that is historically guilty of murdering people because of the color of their skin as well as supporting widespread hatred and unjust discrimination) and a lacrized priest who was dismissed for supporting women’s ordination are really comparable (but then again I come from a denomination where women are ordained). He holds a different and dissenting religious view, and while he must face the consequences for his beliefs and actions, this does mean he is void of having any merit as a speaker in an academic setting. Some people who have held dissenting opinions in the Church turned out to be right (Galileo). I’m not suggesting this gentlemen is correct, in fact theologically it’s pretty much impossible for women to ever be ordained because of what has already been taught on the matter by the popes (namely that it’s a matter of the fact that women cannot be ordained, not that they just aren’t allowed to be ordained), however, as a general rule I think dissenting and differing views should be heard from time to time, it keeps the orthodox honest, sharp, and informed about what they believe and why they believe it. And in those few cases where orthodoxy has wandered out of its bounds into non-religious or moral matters, or allowed mere custom to be elevated to an undue level- dissenting voices may even lead to good, though this does not mean it is good to dissent.

As I said, having him as a speaker is probably not a great idea since it lessens the impact and thus works against the purpose of his excommunication, and it could cause scandal. But I also don’t think it’s that horrible that a university run by a highly scholastic order like the Society of Jesus would be humble enough and value scholarship enough to invite a heretic into their midst to share his ideas, provided that they don’t begin promulgating heresy as a result.

Sorry if this is off topic, but Galileo was actually not completely right. You might find this tract from Catholic Answers interesting, Here is a snip…
catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

He was certainly more right than wrong. The Church’s treatment of Galileo was very unfortunate and admittedly so.

The Galileo analogy doesn’t fit, the Church is not an authority on science.

One particular blogger has a lengthy tract on the whole Galileo affair here
Why is it always Galileo this and Galileo that? What about Kepler and Fr. Scheiner and Tycho?

On the subject, a mere invitation to speak is only an evil if they promulgate that speaker beyond his capacity as a academic. Were they to prop him up as a Church, or even a moral, authority then we would have problems.

That is not a Catholic nor a biblical concept.

Perhaps by your definition, but that is not how it works. Catholic logic is simple - if it is wrong, it is wrong. There is no ifs and buts about it. No effort or resource should be provided to assist the teaching of wrong, which in this case providing a platform for this person to spread his views that run contrary to Catholic teaching. There’s no point in dressing it up as an ‘academic’ discussion, because academia does not exist in a separate dimension where all topics are specially exempt from the bounds of logic and good sense. In the same way, no right-minded scientific institution would permit a flat-earther or cold-fusion advocate to speak at any of their events, even on the grounds of it being ‘academic’. Everybody knows that the intentions and results of doing so have a very real effect, and are far from ‘academic’. :slight_smile:

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Since he has been canned, and is now outside of the Church, there is no truth in the way that he has been advertised as prominent voice* within* Catholicism.
He may well be a voice of conscience, and may well be a voice of feminism, but a voice from within Catholicism, he just aint.

That is exactly what he was advertised to be, according to the OP article.
That is my problem with it for sure.

Otherwise, institutes of higher learning should be open to presenting all points of view. Anything less would be indoctrination. That is not the role of institutes of higher learning, even Catholic ones.

As I said, having him as a speaker is probably not a great idea since it lessens the impact and thus works against the purpose of his excommunication, and it could cause scandal. But I also don’t think it’s that horrible that a university run by a highly scholastic order like the Society of Jesus would be humble enough and value scholarship enough to invite a heretic into their midst to share his ideas, provided that they don’t begin promulgating heresy as a result.

Sadly, it is no secret that Santa Clara Univ is a hotbed of promulgated heresy. I have two degrees from this CINO (Catholic In Name Only) institution. I am usually embarrassed to admit this. I spent as many years re-educating myself on true Catholic teaching (including an authentic view of social justice as presented by the Magisterium) as I spent in SCU’s pretentious, heretical halls. My own children attend secular colleges with on-fire Newman Centers. We won’t touch SCU with a ten-foot pole until the heresy stops completely!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.