An anonymous reader left the following at my last post:
 
      On October 27 at 6 p.m., Dr. Thomas Groome will present “Passing on the Gift of Faith” at St. Rose of Lima Church, 244 W. Main Street (Rt. 20), Northboro. It will be preceded by Mass at 5 p.m. for all who would like to attend. This presentation, part of the parish’s Year of Faith efforts, will discuss how we can pass on our faith to children and other adults in challenging times. Professor Groome is chair of the Dept. of Religious Education and Pastoral Ministry at Boston College. All are welcome.
The following is taken from the Gospa Missions website:
The  False Theology of Dr. Thomas Groome
Laicized priest, Boston College professor of theology and director  of the Institute of Religious  Education and Pastoral Ministry and author of  many books used in Catholic education
Introduction:
The purpose of this document is to present  Dr. Groome’s views on a not insignificant number of topics that he has  disseminated, in print or in lectures or in broadcast interviews, which are in  serious conflict with the teachings of the Holy Father and the Magisterium of  the Catholic Church.  It is by no means intended to be an exhaustive  analysis of Groome’s dissent from the Doctrines of the Catholic Church as many  additional examples can be found in his writings, interviews and lectures. But  the examples included are more than sufficient to establish the fact that Dr.  Groome’s theology is dangerously opposed to the consistent teaching of Catholic  Scripture, the Holy Fathers and Doctors, Pope John Paul II and the loyal  Magisterium of the Church. 
The format of the document is to present a Dr. Groome’s  views, in his own words, on a doctrine of the Catholic church followed by the  consistent teaching of the Catholic Church through her Magisterium. I pray that  all who read this document will subject Dr. Groome’s theology to a critical and  discriminating analysis and will view them with the same “hermeneutic of  suspicion” employed by him in his efforts to rewrite sacred scripture and to  despoil Catholic Tradition.
Groome’s Position On the teaching authority of  the Pope and the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church: 
Groome argues that “Throughout his ministry, Jesus called  together ‘an inclusive discipleship of equals’ to participate in his mission and  to carry it on after him.”      [Thomas Groome, Sharing Faith, A  Comprehensive Approach to Religious Education & Pastoral Ministry, Harper,  San Francisco, 1991, p. 301] op. cit. p. 444]
 
 Expanding on this theme  Groome insists that the Church   “should be an egalitarian [i.e. Democratic] community.” [Ibid.  p. 444]
 
In this same ‘the Church should be a democracy’ vein  Groome insists, “If we remember that the Church is the whole community of the  Body of Christ, including all baptized Christians and not just its leaders, then  we recognize that the Church’s ‘teaching authority’ cannot be limited to  the institutional Magisterium.” [Emphasis added].                             [Thomas Groome,  Educating For Life, op. cit. p. 241.]   
(N.B: the  Catholic Church defines “all Christians” as those who are validly  baptized into the various Protestants sects as well as those validly baptized  into the Catholic Church.  In reading Groome it appears that his definition  of “Christian” is anyone who is baptized into any persuasion, whether the  baptism is judged valid or invalid by the Catholic Church).
 
·         Vatican II emphatically  rejected erroneous statements of this sort when it proclaimed: “But the task of giving an  authentic interpretation to the Word of God, whether in its written form or in  the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the  Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus  Christ.”                                                                                     [Vatican  II, Lumen Gentium, n. 25.]
Groome publicly chastised Pope John Paul II for the Holy  Father’s teaching in his apostolic letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, whose stated  purpose was “to protect the faith of the Catholic Church against errors from  certain members of the Christian faithful, especially from among those dedicated  to the various disciplines of sacred theology.” Groome attacked the letter  calling it “a pretentious attempt by the present pope to stifle conversation  and dialogue.” Groome lamented, “I read  the blessed thing and without being too melodramatic, I was on the verge of tears. It is a very sad  day.”                  [Thomas H. Groome, The Boston Globe, July 2, 1998.]
Totally misrepresenting the true definition of the Papal  Magisterium Groome proclaims “In mainstream Catholic understanding of papal  magisterium, however, the pope, as bishop of Rome, must  teach in consultation and collegiality with the bishops of the world and  represent the consensus faith of the whole Church, in fidelity to  Scripture and Tradition.”[Emphasis  added]                                                                                     [Thomas Groome, Educating for Life, Thomas  More, Texas, 1998, p. 240]
·         Vatican I definitively  taught  “ … that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff,  when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’, i.e., when exercising his office as pastor and  teacher of all Christians he defines, by his supreme apostolic authority, a  doctrine of faith or morals which must be held by the universal Church, enjoys,  through the divine assistance, that infallibility promised to him in blessed  Peter and with which the divine Redeemer wanted His Church to be endowed in  defining doctrine of faith and morals; and therefore that the definitions  of the same Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the  consent of the Church.  If anyone should presume to contradict this  definition of ours … anathema - sit." [Emphasis added]                                                                                          [Vatican I Pastor Aeturnus, Chapter IV].
·         Vatican II emphatically  affirmed that  “The Roman Pontiff, by  reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire  Church, has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a  power which he can always exercise unhindered.” [Emphasis  added]                                                                      [Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 22; cf. Christus Dominus,  n. 2] 
·         Speaking in regard to the supreme teaching authority of the Pope,  Lumen Gentium added: “And therefore, his  definitions [the Pope’s], of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church,  are justly styled irreformable … and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to  any other judgment.”   [Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 25] 
·         Dei  Verbum, the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation teaches that  Sacred Scripture must be viewed within the context of the Church’s Faith and  that we cannot interpret Sacred Scripture such that it invalidates accepted  Church teachings. The second principle that must be observed is that we cannot  interpret Tradition that comes to us from the apostles in a manner that  contradicts what the Magisterium has already ruled definitively to be the  doctrine of the Church: “ … since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted  in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less serious attention must be  given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the  sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole  Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between  elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to  these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of  Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the  Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of  interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which  carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the  word of God. [Emphasis  added].                                                                                       [Dei Verbum, n.12]
 
It is obvious that Dr. Groome’s theology in this area is  seriously at odds with the teaching of Holy  Mother Church and in  some cases borders on the heretical. His pernicious attempt to destroy the  firmly rooted Doctrine of the teaching responsibility and authority of the Pope  and the Magisterium, which dates back to the 1st century, must, in  and of itself, disqualify him as a responsible teacher of, or lecturer on, the  Catholic Faith.  
Groome’s position On Papal succession and the  Supremacy of the Successor of Peter:
In a not too subtle effort to disparage the doctrine of papal  succession and, therefore the right of the popes, including Pope John Paul II,  to teach in the name of Jesus, Groome declares,  “The traditional  Catholic assertion that there is a direct historical line of succession between  the present Pope and Peter,presumed to be the first bishop of  Rome, must also be nuanced [i.e. “questioned”].” [Emphasis  added]                                             [Thomas Groome, Sharing Faith,  op. cit. p. 314.]
 
Groome continues, “in light of New Testament scholarship,  we cannot presume a line of direct succession between pope and Peter...the  function of bishop as we might recognize it today did not begin until the second  century.”    [Ibid. p. 314.] 
Groome concludes: “In light of this, ‘the supposition  that, when Peter did come to Rome (presumably in  the 60’s), he took over and became the first bishop represents a retrojection of  later church order’.”  [Ibid.]
·         The  Catholic Church has unambiguously and consistently taught and declared that: “It is by the institution of Christ the Lord, that is, by divine right, that  blessed Peter has endless successors in his primacy over the whole  Church.”                   [Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Denz.  3056.]
·         “… the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter in the same primacy.” (i.e. Rome). [Vatican I,  Pastor Aeternus, Denz. 3058].
·         Pope  John Paul II has declared that this definition of papal  succession“…binds  the primacy of Peter and his successor to the See of Rome,  which cannot be replaced by any other see.”                                                                                                       [Pope John Paul II, The Bishop of Rome  Is Peter’s Successor, General Audience, January 27,  1993].
·         Vatican  I solemnly teaches:  “If, then, any one shall say that it is not by the  institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter should  have a perpetual line of successors in the primacy over the UniversalChurch; or  that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy - anathema sit.”[Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Denz.  3058.]
The  doctrines of Papal supremacy and the infallible teaching authority of the Pope  did not, of course, originate with the 1st and 2nd Vatican  Councils. From the following citations it is abundantly clear that from the very  first days of the Church it was Peter to whom the faithful, including the  apostles, looked for leadership and it was the Pope, the Successor of Peter, to  whom all faithful Christians turned for the definitive interpretation of  Christ’s teachings. The Truth that all Christians must, as articles of faith,  believe. 
·         Pope  St.Leo the Great taught the doctrines of Papal succession and the supremacy of  the Pope as head of the Apostolic See in the 5thcentury, by which  time it was already a “longstanding custom”:   “The Lord . . .  wanted His gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the  head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the  solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the  divine mystery . .   The  Apostolic See . . has on countless  occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops . . .  And through  the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either  revoked or confirmed, as dictated by longstanding custom” [Emphasis added]                                                                                                                                                                      [Pope St. Leo the Great (r. 440-461)  in Letter to the Bishops of Vienne, July, 445 A.D., 10:1-2; in Jurgens, William  A., ed. and tr., The Faith of the Early Fathers [FEF], 3 volumes, Collegeville,  MN: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 3, 269] 
·         The  Council of Lyons II (1274) affirmed that: … it is the teaching authority  of the Church itself that determines what is orthodox (including the  position of supremacy of the papacy) when it declared:  “Also this same  holy Roman Church holds the highest and complete primacy and spiritual power  over the universal Catholic Church which she truly and humbly recognizes herself  to have received with fullness of power from the Lord Himself in Blessed Peter,  the chief or head of the Apostles whose successor is the Roman Pontiff. And just  as to defend the truth of Faith she is held before all other things, so if any  questions shall arise regarding faith they ought to be defined by her judgment .  . . in all cases looking forward to an ecclesiastical examination, recourse can  be had to her judgment, and all churches are subject to her; their prelates give  obedience and reverence to her”.  [Henry Denzinger, The Sources of  Catholic Dogma; translated by Roy J. Deferrari, from the 13th edition of  Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1955, Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, section 466, p.  185]
 
·         From  the Council of Florence (1438-1445), in its Decree for the Greeks, Laetentur  coeli, July 6,  1439  we learn  that:   “We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the  Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman  Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles,  and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and  the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him  in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the  universal Church; just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical Councils  and in the sacred canons”. [Ibid.,  section 694, p.  220]
On the ordained Ministry, the Eucharist and  the Apostolic Succession:
In Sharing Faith, Dr. Groome supports the notion that  Jesus did not commission the apostles at the last supper.  “… the many  specific ministries in the New Testament church 
seems to have emerged from the existential situations and  needs of the first Christian communities.   Some people were needed to preside at worship others to preach, to teach, … , to minister to  people in need, and so on” [Emphasis  added]. Groome concludes with the observation that  “ … the  communities began to designate people to fulfill functions of service …  in  the name of the church. They did not understand the commissioning to confer a  sacral status [on those  commissioned].   Designation called one to a function of  service but not apart from the rest of the community. [Emphasis added]                                    [ Thomas Groome, Sharing Faith, op.  cit. p. 309]
 
Groome includes the sacral function of presiding at  worship with all the other non-sacral functions, which certainly could  have been conferred on a person by the community itself or even merely assumed  by a person without any investiture, formal or informal, by the community  thereby strongly inferring that the sacral ordination of priests was  accomplished in the same manner.  This is a classic example of Groome’s  uncanny ability to interject a seemingly innocuous word or phrase to plant the  seed of a heretical view.  Employing the “hermeneutic of suspicion”, the  cornerstone of his teaching philosophy, to first cast doubt on and then to  totally deny, a well established, Traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic  Church. One must admit that, unfortunately, he is marvelously skillful at his  craft.
Groome often attempts to validate his arguments by citing  opinions proposed by well know dissident theologians. In Sharing Faith  Groome eagerly embraces an assertion by the well known revisionist theologian  Fr. Raymond E. Brown on the ministerial priesthood, which Groome claims is  “now generally accepted”; in which Brown proclaims;  “In spite of  the long tradition of this view, contemporary scholars find no basis for such an  interpretation. In other words, Jesus did not ordain the apostles  at  this final supper to be ‘priests,’ giving them thereby the power to celebrate  the eucharist (sic).”  [Emphasis added]                                                                                                                                                                    [ Thomas Groome, Sharing  Faith, op. cit. p. 314, 512n. 27.]
 
Groome’s repudiation of the Church’s teaching on the origin  of the ministerial priesthood becomes manifestly evident as he expounds on  Brown’s hypothesis.  “ Brown is proposing, and his thesis now seems  generally accepted, that the first Christians did not see the confecting of the  Eucharist as a personal and ontological power invested in one person who  rendered Eucharist for the community. Instead, through the presence of the Holy  Spirit, the ‘sacramental powers’ resided in the whole community, ……, the  community chose certain people to preside at divine worship for the sake of ‘holy order’.  Usually … this designation fell to the community leader,  not because of a sacral power, but by HER or his function of  leadership[Emphasis  added].   
[Thomas  Groome, Sharing Faith, op. cit. p. 310.]
 
Elsewhere, in his attempt to discredit the church’s  consistent teaching on the Hierarchical structure of Holy Orders, Groome claims  that “the function of bishop as we might  recognize it today did not begin until the second  century.”                                            [Sharing Faith, op. cit. p. 314] 
Again quoting Raymond Brown, Groome concurs with Brown’s  denial of the church’s teaching on Apostolic succession:  “There is  simply no compelling evidence for the classic thesis that…there was a chain of  ordination passing the power of presiding at the Eucharist from the Twelve to  missionary apostles to presbyter-bishops. How one got the right to preside  and whether it endured beyond a single instance we do not  know.”  [Emphasis added] [Sharing Faith, op. cit. p.  310]
Commenting on what Groome  defines as the “Tridentine perspective” on the “ministry”, which  emphasized the division of the Ordained Ministry into bishop, priest and deacon,  Groome declares:  “New  Testament evidence suggests…the Tridentine perception of ministry is much more  the product of history and of the socio-cultural contexts in which the church  found herself than of any blueprint to be found in the New Testament  communities.”  [Ibid.  p. 311-12.]
 
Groome concludes that “the notion that presiding at  Eucharist is an exclusively priestly function did not become widespread until  the beginning of the third century.  The association of priesthood with Eucharist emerged as later Christians began to allegorize sacrifices of the  Hebrew covenant, which were offered by priests. As Christianity became  separated from Judaism and thus from Jewish priesthood, Eucharist was  perceived as replacing the sacrifices no longer offered in the now destroyed  temple, and thus requiring the sacerdotal function of the priest.” [Emphasis added].[Ibid.]
 
How many innocent young minds  have read or heard these words of Dr. Groome pronounced by a teacher of  religious education who is a disciple of Groome and have, to the destruction of  their faith and possibly the loss of their immortal souls, concluded that the  Eucharist has no more significance than the burnt offerings of the Old Testament  priests?  In stark contrast to the stated beliefs of Dr. Groome, the  Catholic Church has definitively, emphatically and consistently taught:
·         “It has always been the conviction of the Church of God …that by the consecration of the bread and wine there  takes place a change in the whole substance of the bread into the whole substance  of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into  the substance of his  blood.”  [Council of Trent, (DS 1642), cf.  CCC, 1376]
·         “ ….  the Eucharist “is the principal and central  raison d'ĂȘtre of the sacrament of  priesthood, which effectively came into being at the moment of the institution  of the  Eucharist”.   Apostolic Letter Dominicae  Cenae(24 February  1980), 2: AAS 72  (1980), 115.]
·         The Council of Trent affirmed the Catholic doctrine on the  Eucharist and ministerial priesthood with the following words;  “Sacrifice and priesthood are by the ordinance of God so united that both  have existed in every law. Since therefore in the New Testament the Catholic  Church has received from the institution of Christ the holy, visible sacrifice  of the Eucharist, it must also be confessed that there is in that Church a new,  visible and external priesthood, into which the old has been translated. That  this was instituted by the same Lord our Savior, and that to the Apostles and  their successors in the priesthood was given the power of consecrating, offering  and administering His body and blood  …   is shown by the Sacred  Scriptures and has always been taught by the tradition of the Catholic  Church.    [Emphasis [Council of Trent, Session 23, Chapter 1]
 
·         Pope John Paul II in his 2003 encyclical on the Eucharist  cautions:  “At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding  of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is  celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet. Furthermore, the  necessity of the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic succession, is at times obscured and the sacramental nature of the Eucharist is reduced  to its mere effectiveness as a form of proclamation”.  [Emphasis  added].   [ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA  n.10]
 
·         “The Eucharist too has its foundation in  the Apostles …  because it was entrusted by Jesus to the Apostles and has  been handed down to us by them and by their successors. It is in continuity with  the practice of the Apostles, in obedience to the Lord's command, that the  Church has celebrated the Eucharist down the  centuries”    ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA n.10]
·         Vatican Council II teaches that it is the ordained priest who:   “acting in the person of Christ, brings about  the Eucharistic Sacrifice and offers it to God in the name of all  the  people”.   [Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic  Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 10.]
 
·         “the Eucharist … is a  gift which radically transcends the power of the assembly and is … essential for  validly linking the Eucharistic consecration to the sacrifice of the Cross and  to the Last Supper. The assembly gathered together for the celebration of the  Eucharist … absolutely requires the presence of an ordained priest as its  president. … the community is by itself incapable of providing an  ordained minister. This minister is a gift which the assembly receives  through episcopal succession going back to the Apostles. It is the Bishop  who, through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, makes a new presbyter by conferring  upon him the power to consecrate the Eucharist.”[Emphasis  added]     [ECCLESIA DE  EUCHARISTIA n.29]
 
·         “ …. the Eucharistic mystery cannot be celebrated in any  community except by an ordained priest, as the Fourth Lateran Council expressly  taught”.     [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Sacerdotium Ministeriale (6 August 1983), III.4: AAS 75 (1983), 1006]
 
·         The  Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: “The Lord, having loved those who were his own, loved them  to the end. Knowing that the hour had come to leave this world and return to the  Father, in the course of a meal he washed their feet and gave them the  commandment of love. In order to leave them a pledge of this love, in order  never to depart from his own and to make them sharers in his Passover, he  instituted the Eucharist as the memorial of his death and Resurrection, and  commanded his apostles to celebrate it until his return; ‘thereby he constituted  them priests of the New  Testament’."   [CCC. n.  1337]
·         The Council of Trent declared: “If anyone shall say that in the  Catholic Church there is not instituted a hierarchy by divine ordinance, which  consists of bishops, priests and ministers [i.e. Deacons] - anathema  sit.”   [Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Order,  Denz. 1776.]
·         Pope Pius VI emphatically proclaimed that it is “heretical” to assert:  “the power of the ministry and of ecclesial rule comes to  the pastors from the community of the  faithful.”  [Pope Pius VI, Const. Auctorem  Fidei, August 28, 1794, Denz. 1502] 
·          St. Paul in his farewell discourse to the presbyters  of  Miletus admonishes:  “Now be solicitous for yourselves and for  the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as bishops to pasture  the Church of God, which he purchased with his own blood” [Acts 20:28].
·         Cardinal Ratzinger notes how Acts 20:28 illustrates  “ … that the Holy Spirit places men in this office [i.e. the ordained  ministry]: it is not a delegation on the part of the community…but the gift  of the Lord, who gives personally what only he can give.”    [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to  Communion, Ignatius Press, San  Francisco, 1996, p. 122.]
·         St. Paul, himself, left us testimony regarding the bestowal of the  ordained ministry effected through the sacramental rite of “laying on of hands”, which transmits the special gift of the Holy Spirit, in his letters to Timothy: “I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the  laying on of my hands" (2 Tim 1:6), and "If any one aspires to the office  of bishop, he desires a noble task" (1Tim 3:1).[64] To Titus he said: “This is why I left you in Crete, that you  amend what was defective,  and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,” adding that “a bishop,  as God’s steward, must be blameless…he must hold fast to the sure doctrine  and also refute those who contradict it.” [Emphasis added]    (Titus 1:5-9). 
On the Ordination of Women  Priests:
Dr. Groome has  consistently and emphatically publicly proclaimed his unwavering commitment to  the cause of the ordination of women. 
As early as 1982,  Groome accused the Church of using“false” reasons to justify excluding  women from the ordained priesthood. He insisted that women must be admitted to  the ministries of“deacon, priest, bishop and pontiff” in order to  establish “a Church of mutuality and inclusiveness.                                                                                                [Thomas  Groome, Signs of Hope, PACE 12, Direction A, St. Mary’s Press. Winona 1982,  pp. 4,6] 
 
Groome asserts that the Church’s doctrine regarding the  reservation of the ordained priesthood to men alone “is the result of a  patriarchal mind-set and culture and is not of Christian  faith.”    [Thomas Groome, Sharing Faith: A Comprehensive  Approach to Religious Education &Pastoral Ministry, Harper, San Francisco,  1991, p. 328.]
Groome castigates the Church with his accusation that:  “the injustice of excluding women from priesthood debilitates the church’s  sacramentality in the world … it is a countersign to God’s  reign."   [Ibid.]
Groome alleges that the position of the Church is  “  … doing spiritual and moral harm to society.”        [Ibid. p.  518.n.114.]
 
In his program of study for use of inclusive language in the  Church, Groome declares that:  “the continued exclusion of women from  ordained ministry in the Catholic Church is seen by fair-minded scholars as  without theological or  biblical  warrant.”  [Thomas Groome, Language for a ‘Catholic’ Church: A  Program of Study (revised and updated edition), Sheed&Ward, Kansas City 1995, p. 31]
Dr. Groome is often a featured speaker at Voice of the Faithful  (VOTF) affairs where he consistently seizes on the VOTF mantra that the Catholic  Church must be restructured along democratic lines in order that:  “…we  reconstruct the Catholic priesthood” to facilitate the ordination of“ women as priests and  bishops.”  [Thomas Groome, Boston Globe, May 19, 2002]
 
In an interview with the Boston Globe in 2003 Dr. Groome made  his position on priestly celibacy and the ordination of women to the priesthood  perfectly clear by proclaiming:  “The present church's legislation  requires celibacy, and many of the bishops and the present pope would see that  as close to being divinely inspired. That wouldn't be my sentiment at all. I  think it's a human regulation that we should dispense with. It should be  optional. I would have a similar sentiment on the ordination of women.” [Emphasis added].  [Thomas Groome, Boston Globe, June 26, 2003].  
 
Here again, Dr. Groome skillfully employs the tactic of  equating two issues, that of priestly celibacy and the ordination of woman, as  being doctrinally equivalent when in fact they are not and cannot be treated as  such. Although the Church, for very good reasons, requires and is committed to  maintaining mandatory clerical celibacy in the Latin Rite, it does so in its  capacity as administrator over God’s Church in which role it demands obedience  from its priests. However, the Church’s doctrine on the male-only ministerial  priesthood is instituted by Christ and therefore is not within the Church’s  power to change.  That fact is conveniently glossed over by Dr. Groome. 
 
·         “The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal ordination can be validly conferred on women.  A few heretical sects in the first centuries, especially Gnostic ones,           entrusted the exercise of the priestly ministry to women: This innovation was immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers, who considered it as unacceptable in the Church”.                                                                           [Inter Insigniores  Declaration of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the question of admission of women to the ministerial priesthood, 1976.]
 
·         “It should not be supposed that the issue of women’s orders is  novel: it dates back to the Montanist heresy of the second and third centuries,  and since then has surfaced intermittently in association with comparably  gnostic and anti-historical interpretations of  Christianity.”                                                                                       [Fr. Donald Keefe, S.J., Covenantal  Theology: The Eucharistic Order of History, Presidio Press, Novato, California, 1996, p. 42]
 
 
·         In 1994, Pope John Paul II published the apostolic letter In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, stating the Church’s position on conferring priestly ordination on women.  The Holy Father proclaims that this teaching is founded on the example of Christ, as recorded in the Gospels and on the universal Tradition of the Church. Therefore the Holy Father declared:  “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”  [Emphasis added].                                                                                                  [Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, n. 4 ; cf. nn. 1, 2]
Source document may be found here.
As I said in a previous post, the Worcester Diocese has succumbed over the years to the tragic tendency to 
place unity above the truth.  The company man who is willing to "go along" with 
sin and error "for the sake of friendship" is most welcome in this distorted 
notion of "community."  But the man who puts the truth first is pushed to the 
margins and ostracized.