The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionWomen priests demonstrate profound faithfulness to God
by Jamie L Manson on Feb. 15, 2011
Late last week, a new iPhone app designed to help Catholics prepare for the confessional made its debut. The app tailors its questions to a person’s gender and vocation. So if you punch in both “female” and “priest,” you immediately receive the message “sex and vocation are incompatible.”
The women and men featured in the new documentary Pink Smoke would beg to differ.
This weekend Pink Smoke had its debut as part of the Athena film festival hosted by Barnard College in New York. The film had been screened previously at the national Call to Action conference last November. The documentary chronicles the fight against the injustice of the ban on women’s ordination in the Roman Catholic Church.
The film’s title refers to the action taken by the Women’s Ordination Conference in the days leading to the elevation of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI. Imitating the Vatican’s symbol of white smoke sent into the air after the election of a pope, the activists burned Pink Smoke to raise awareness of the critical lack of women in the papal election process.
Angela Bonavoglia, Jules Hart, Jean Marchant, and Maryknoll Fr. Roy Bourgeois speak on a panel about the documentary 'Pink Smoke' at Barnard College in New York Feb. 12 (NCR photo/ Jamie L. Manson)
Attendees at the Barnard screening were treated not only to the film, but also to a panel discussion featuring filmmaker Jules Hart, Good Catholic Girls author Angela Bonovoglia, Roman Catholic Womenpriest (RCWP) Jean Marchant, and Maryknoll Fr. Roy Bourgeois, who received a letter from the Vatican's Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in 2008 warning him of excommunication for refusing to recant support for women’s ordination.
These latter three panelists are also featured in Hart’s film, along with a variety of players in the women’s ordination movement. Interestingly, Hart herself is not a Catholic.
NCR: February 17-March 1, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- Conscience Roundup
Hear what theologians, commentators, and our editors have to say about the contraception mandate
- Special Section: Religious Life
Work of missioners, past and future; African meetings; and more
- Tribute to a Peacemaker
New York's Pax Christi fetes Daniel Berrigan
For those who have invested time and energy into supporting the movement, the film serves as a helpful review of the highlights in the struggle for women’s ordination. Those who are less knowledgeable about its history will benefit greatly from this hour-long introduction into the key historical moments and theological convictions behind the effort to achieve the full inclusion of women in the Roman Catholic priesthood.
The film touches on the verse from Romans 16:7 where Paul refers to a woman named Junia as an apostle. Archeologist Dorothy Irvin’s explorations into the evidence of women “presbytera” in the early church, found in frescos in catacombs, is also highlighted briefly.
Irvin’s research indicates that images of women in ministerial positions were eradicated after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in 313 CE.
A segment is also dedicated to Ludmila Javorová, who was secretly ordained in 1970 by Bishop Felix Maria Davidék so that she could serve the underground Roman Catholic Church during Czechoslovakia’s communist rule.
Javorova remained silent about her ordination until 1995 -- six years after the fall of communism -- when she told her story to Miriam Therese Winters who published the interview in the book Out of the Depths.
But the heart of the film really belongs to the Roman Catholic Womenpriests. Their movement is traced back to the 2002 ordination of seven women on a boat that sailed the Danube River, avoiding the jurisdictions of German and Austrian bishops.
One year later, an unidentified male bishop in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church ordained two of the original seven women as bishops. The RCWP believe that their ordinations are valid because of their unbroken line of apostolic succession within the Roman Catholic Church.
The RCWP believe that, because their ordinations were performed by bishops, they were ordained in a line of unbroken apostolic succession. The ordinations continued -- in 2005 on the St. Lawrence Seaway, which borders the U.S. and Canada, and then on the three rivers in Pittsburgh in 2006.
Several of the women who were ordained in these ceremonies, including Victoria Rue and Juanita Cordero, are interviewed in the film. Cordero’s late husband, former Jesuit Don Cordero, also lends humor and wisdom throughout the film.
Interestingly, the voice that is probably heard most throughout the documentary belongs to a male Catholic priest.
Bourgeois speaks movingly about his calling to follow his conscience when a long time friend and fellow activist, Janice Sevre-Duszynska, decided to pursue her life-long call to ordination through the RCWP. Bourgeois concedes that many priests fear losing their jobs, pensions and sacramental power if they speak out about the ordination of women.
But says Bourgeois: “I’d rather eat at a soup kitchen and be free rather than not do something that I’m called to do.”
During the panel discussion after the screening, Bourgeois admitted that he is embarrassed that it took him so long to speak out against this injustice. He says that he longs to speak about it to his priest friends and to bishops. But when he raises the issue, they immediately shut him down and refuse to talk about it.
“It is a power issue for them…there is a fear of losing privilege,” says Bourgeois
One of the film’s finest contributions is the way it evokes the sorrow of women who have been denied the ability to fully serve the church that they call home. Without a hint of anger, it depicts the longings of these women -- longings that can only come out of a deep commitment and even deeper love for the church.
In her the panel presentation, Marchant offered some insight into this pain.
Prior to her ordination, she served as director of healthcare ministry for the Boston Archdiocese. More than 70 percent of the members of the Catholic chaplains association are women. As chaplains, they build deep relationships with the sick and the dying. And, yet, when the time for last rites approaches, these women are forced to call a priest.
Typically, he does not know the patient and often fails to involve the female chaplain in the prayers and ministrations. For Marchant, offering the sacrament should be the culmination of the chaplain’s journey with the patient.
The one weakness of the film is its lack of younger voices. With the exception of a few scenes of an interview with NCR columnist Nicole Sotelo, who speaks powerfully about the importance of struggling for justice in the Catholic Church, all other interviewees appear to be baby boomers or older.
When I asked Marchant about the interest in the RCWP among young Catholic women, she said that she get many inquiries from newer generations.
“One of the dilemmas they face is that they are either working in the church and cannot afford to those their jobs, or they are over-committed by their careers and raising families.”
Currently 120 women in the U.S. have been ordained as RCWP.
Though members of the RCWP are considered excommunicated, many of them look forward to a future when they can be reintegrated into the Roman Catholic Church, should the church ever open the sacrament of holy orders to women.
But some critics of the movement have argued that the RCWP tests one of the great tenets of feminism, articulated by the late Audre Lorde: “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”
Scholars such as Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and Mary Hunt believe that Catholic women should think beyond ordination and seek a church that functions more like, in the words of Schüssler-Fiorenza, “a discipleship of equals.”
Most womenpriests identify themselves as “worker priests.” Though they carry on their professions in fields as various as teachers, non-profit workers, artists and architects, on weekends they celebrate liturgies in homes, non-Catholic university chapels, and Protestant churches.
These womenpriests dwell in the liminal space between the established, clerical world of the church and the revolutionary, risky world of the prophet. And, like many prophets before them, they find themselves in exile from the religious structure that they call home.
The womenpriests are manna for many Catholics who, too, are in exile; these communities of Catholics are clearly manna for the womenpriests as well.
Though it does not ask the question, Pink Smoke left me wondering to what extent this liminality actually gives birth to and maintains the integrity and faithfulness of the RCWP.
In many ways, their movement reflects the early Christian Church before it was accepted by the Empire. The risks that many womenpriests take infuse their ministries with a deep sense of commitment.
Their willingness to sacrifice the privileges and securities of paid ministry demonstrates a profound faithfulness to the God who has called them.
If womenpriests are one day permitted to reenter the established church, how much of their holy creativity and prophetic edge would be lost in the transition back into the institution?
Pink Smoke leaves you hoping that all of the grace received through their living as marginal church communities will be remembered and sustained when women are welcomed finally into the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church.
[Jamie L. Manson received her Master of Divinity degree from Yale Divinity School where she studied Catholic theology and sexual ethics. Her columns for NCR earned her a first prize Catholic Press Association award for Best Column/Regular Commentary in 2010.]
| Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Jamie Manson’s column, "Grace on the Margins", is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add "Grace on the Margins" to your list. |
Some of the "historical"
Some of the "historical" information in questionable. For instance,there a quite of few masculine Greek nouns,usually proper names,which in in "as".My own name in Northern demotic Greek is usally rendered as Philippas. Sigma was added to Jesus,the Greek equivalent of "Yehoshua",precisely to make it sound more masculine. Only Chrysostom seems to cite Junias as female. Why then was there only one female apostle? The term "presbytera" is still used in the Greek church as a honorific for the priest's wife. Interestingly enough,in the Massoretic text,God sometimes permits herslf to be addressed as a woman,cf: Ps 16:1 & Ps 84:13.
"Why then was there only one
"Why then was there only one female apostle?"
I would suggest that in a male dominated Jewish/Greek/Roman society, the men were doing all the historical writing. Why would they feel obligated to mention a bunch of women?
Here's the thing, there are
Here's the thing, there are certain necessities for a valid sacrament, those necessities are form, matter, and intent.
Form is the words and actions of the sacrament, for Holy Orders, the form is the Prayer of Ordination (or Consecration for bishops) and the laying on of hands.
Intent is obvious, a bishop must intend to ordain a man to the particular sacred order, either deacon or priest; three bishops must intend to consecrate a man to the sacred order of bishop.
Matter is the physicality of the sacrament. The matter of the Eucharist, for example, is unleavened bread and wine with specific qualities, such as wine that has not had any additives included in its production. A priest can try to celebrate Mass using pizza crust (a form of bread) and a strawberry wine cooler (a form of "fruit of the vine), and he may have the intent to do so and he may have the proper form, but the lack of matter renders the sacrament invalid.
So, too, a bishop may lay hands on a woman and may properly recite the Prayer of Ordination with the intent to ordain her. However, the lack of proper matter renders the ordination invalid. Valid, proper matter for ordination includes the male gender. Thus, it can be said without any doubt that none of these so-called priestesses are validly ordained. They are like the 8 year old boy who plays Mass using crackers and grape juice; the only difference, of course, is that the boy does not pretend that his Mass is valid and that his pretend sacrament is really Jesus' Body and Blood, the priestess does and so she commits a grave sin, the sin of sacrilege against the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Holy Orders (and any other Sacrament she pretends to celebrate).
The boy's actions are respectful of the Sacrament, he has such a love of or respect for the Mass and/or the priest, that in his playtime he pretends to be a priest. The priestess's actions are not respectful of the Sacrament, they are scandalous and divisive, encouraging dissent and division in the Church. There is nothing cute or defensible about that at all.
" A priest can try to
" A priest can try to celebrate Mass using pizza crust (a form of bread) and a strawberry wine cooler (a form of "fruit of the vine), and he may have the intent to do so and he may have the proper form, but the lack of matter renders the sacrament invalid."
You should say it is illicit not invalid because it is still valid. Remember the eastern rite churches use leavened bread.
It is both illicit and
It is both illicit and invalid. There are specific requirements for the type of wine that is to be used for the celebration of the Eucharist, and wine cooler does not fit those requirements at all. An absence of proper matter renders the sacrament invalid, not merely illicit.
"An absence of proper matter
"An absence of proper matter renders the sacrament invalid..."
A typical "cookie cutter" response.
Yes, we know what the "official" teaching is, but the earliest Christians apparently did not always use wine and/or bread for their eucharistic liturgies. Apparently, one consideration was just what "matter" was available to a Chrisian community to "give thanks" to God. Did the community have wine, for example?
In Catholic theology, the word 'valid' means "what works or is efficacious". Given what we know about a most generous and all-loving and all-merciful God in the New Testament, can we accurately conclude that God will refuse a community's act of thanksgiving --- merely because the "wrong matter" was used???
At some point, I think, the Church of Rome must get real in its official theology.
God is bigger than an ecclesial rule on "what counts". There's bigger fish to fry!
The distinctions among form,
The distinctions among form, matter and intent are interesting (and useful) in theological discourse, but just because we use them in discourse doesn't transform them into hardened doctrine. In some cases—such as the kind of bread and wine used in the eucharist—the standards in use are merely canonical, and canon law, as we know, can be modified.
CWG focuses on the "matter" of the sacrament. This is fair enough, but then he (or she) makes a giant leap and claims that the "matter" of priestly ordination has to do with the male flesh of the candidates. One is curious about the basis for this claim, since it raises many historical and scriptural issues. Were the first presbyters so ordained because they were men, or because they were Jewish, or because they were exemplary followers or Jesus—or was some other "matter" involved in their selection? CWG has not even taken the first step in resolving these questions but would have us believe the issue is settled. When one is so fearful of dissent and division in the church that one stops asking questions, then Christianity becomes a pill that one swallows rather than a faith that one lives.
I seriously doubt Jesus
I seriously doubt Jesus followed all those rules at the Last Supper. And no where did he say that a woman could not "Do this in memory of me."
And I would venture that if a priest were stuck in a part of the word where wheat bread or the proper wine was not available, Jesus would not mind coming to the flock in the closest form available to them.
The best way to be silenced
The best way to be silenced and thwarted is to be co-opted by a large system.
Caveat emptor!
May Jesus Christ silenced and
May Jesus Christ silenced and thwarted since Constintine coopt the worldwide system of patriarchal Christendom.
"If womenpriests are one day
"If womenpriests are one day permitted to reenter the established church, how much of their holy creativity and prophetic edge would be lost in the transition back into the institution?"
Perhaps the answer to that is not to seek to reenter the established church, but to invite the established church to join them at the margins. Then, perhaps, one day the whole church may rejoice in her holy creativity and prophetic edge.
Poor Pope Benedict. I think
Poor Pope Benedict. I think he's learning to excommunicate, or to lift an excommunication e.g. (the bishops of the SSPX), are about as effective a set of tools in his spiritual arsenal as threatening to cancel a Catholic's subscription to "The Wanderer", or "Our Sunday Visitor".
God bless the lady priests. May their numbers multiply. Someday the Roman Church will see the light and recognize their error.
RCWP have founded their own
RCWP have founded their own church and have their own form of Catholicism. Who can say they can't? Nobody. In a world with 30,000+ Christian groups, what's one more?
I am more concerned about these women's parishioners than RCWP. How are the parishioners doing? How are problems in these small, house churches named, discussed and resolved? How is "epi-scope" - "over-site" exercised in these communities? Do womanpriests obey their bishop, when push comes to shove, or do they strike out on their own again, or find new leadership, if the priest/bishop relationship becomes untenable?
Issues of power and competence and the plain, old grind of one human will against another don't vanish just because a woman calls herself a priest and tries to act accordingly. Let's hear from women in ministerial roles in other Christian communities before we get all weepy about the wonders of womenpriests. I'd especially like to hear about the women who gave up their ministry to become laywomen again - even converting to (gulp) Roman Catholicism. How 'bout that story?
Apostolic succession is
Apostolic succession is mostly superstition when separated from the Bishop of Rome. Validity of orders ceases when unity with that Bishop ceases. That is why all Anglican orders are invalid. The Bishop who attemtped ordination invalidated his own orders. On the other hand, it is highly doubtful any such bishop performed the "ordination."
Surely no one seriously
Surely no one seriously believes that, whenever the Church decides to ordain women, that it will allow these women to be "reconciled to the Church" and welcomed back with their own priesthood validated! No, no,it will never happen because they must continue to be punished for their audacity in attempting to be ordained before the lords of the Church gave their permission. Only good little girls who wait till the lords say it is okay to be ordained are worthy of the honor.
Sorry to sound so snarky and I'd be thrilled to be corrected but, so far, I haven't seen the slightest indication of graciousness or generosity toward anyone who ignores the lords' orders.
The Church has no authority
The Church has no authority to ordain women, get over it!
The original 12 were all
The original 12 were all Jewish. Does the church have "authority" to ordain gentiles? The authority argument against women is really a ridiculous argument used by JP II in his frustration and wish not to change. It only is an expression of misogyny.
Dr Porch Um, there have
Dr Porch Um, there have never been womyn priests in the Roman Catholic Church.
Not the Latin rite; byzantine rite; maronite rite, coptic right, syro-malarbic rite.
But yeah, it's just JP II
Dear "Anonymous
Dear "Anonymous Scrantonian",
There have, indeed, been women priests in the Roman Catholic Church. Some have even been ordained to the presbyterate as in Eastern Europe a number of years ago.
In fact, we have women priests in the Roman Catholic Church even today. These Catholic women are genuine priests of God by virtue of their baptism --- just like their primitive ancestors in the Christian faith shortly after the Resurrection.
If I didn't know how to spell the word 'women', I guess I'd stick to anonymity, too!
Yours truly,
Joseph Jaglowicz
You are absolutely right.
You are absolutely right. And along the same lines, why does the Vatican even let women receive communion if we are to believe there were no women present at the Last Supper?
THE CHURCH HAS NO AUTHORITY
THE CHURCH HAS NO AUTHORITY is quite precise.
Since the church has NO authority TO ordain women then, the church has NO authority NOT TO ordain women.
The People of God, however, DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY to ordain women.
When women hear the call to
When women hear the call to seek ordination, the invitation comes from the Holy Spirit. I’m waiting for some male cleric to state otherwise…
Read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis or talk to any priest that is in line with the Truth, taught by the RCC, Christ's institution.
Clearly, these persons would not state that any "call" to ordained priesthood a woman thinks she is hearing would come from the Holy Spirit, as that same Spirit, as a Person of God, has not given the Church authority to ordain women.
Silly, didn't you know only
Silly, didn't you know only MEN can talk to the Holy Spirit? And then, because they hear it DIRECTLY from the Holy Spirit, it is only MEN who can define what women are to do?
They have that, uh, Hotline to Heaven, that women do not.
However, it is women who
However, it is women who follow and live out the promptings of the Holy Spirit !!! Isn't it also ironic that most of the people who volunteer and work within the CHURCH (both People of God and institutional church) and who attend Mass in greater numbers are women ? Without those women the church pews would be emptier than they are.
You don't have to be a cleric
You don't have to be a cleric to understand that unless you believe that the laws of the Roman Catholic Church are divinely commanded,you have no call to be ordained to a position obligating you to teach as many people as possible that the laws of the Roman Catholic Church are divinely commanded.These women want to be Protestants because being Catholic is defined by believing in obedience to those laws.Regarding the permanent prohibition of women from the priesthood as divinely commanded is a defining element of Catholicism as opposed to Protestantism.
The defining element behind
The defining element behind the defining elemnet leading to the ban on women priests in the RCC is nothing more than rank sexism.
The ban on women's ordination has nothing to do with Jesus and that is why the RCC has no authority on the subject.
THE PEOPLE OF GOD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDAIN WOMEN IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Many are called but few are
Many are called but few are chosen.
Perhaps because I appreciate
Perhaps because I appreciate the potential power of words, I wish we'd jettison our customary use of the word 'priest' when we speak of ministerial orders in the Church of Rome.
When a woman --- or a man --- is ordained to preside at the eucharistic liturgy, etc., s/he is, in fact, ordained to the presbyterate (or episcopate), not to any kind of priesthood different from that of the rest of us baptized men and women. Every Christian is a true priest of God by virtue of his or her baptism.
Rather than belabor the point, please see my comments posted August 2 & 5 on the history of ministerial ordination at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3876. An excellent reference is Kenan Osborne's PRIESTHOOD: A HISTORY OF THE ORDAINED MINISTRY IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. The author is professor emeritus of theology at the Franciscan School of Theology, Berkeley, and a past president of the Catholic Theological Society of America.
When we buy into Rome's distinction between the priesthood of the faithful, on the one hand, and the special "ontological" priesthood of those ordained to orders, on the other, we open ourselves up to the very kind of bifurcated --- and dysfunctional --- ecclesial culture that systematically allowed/promoted the clerical sexual abuse of our children over the years, not to mention the episcopal coverups, intimidation of victims and their advocates, etc. We also support the blind arrogance of legalistic hierarchs so very much on display recently in the Phoenix abortion case.
It's long past time to retrieve our historical roots. To do so, we must cut through the overgrowth that distorts the message and image of a humble Nazarean who taught us about God's unconditional love and eschewed the pomp, perks, power, and privileges too often put on display by modern-day prelates of the church.
Those who refuse to heed the lessons of history...
Joseph, thank you for making
Joseph, thank you for making good sense of this issue.
First, you take a far too
First, you take a far too literal read of history, a read that disregards utterly the possibility of unfolding and evolving theological and sacramental understanding in the Church. Were one to read your viewpoints literally, as you read history, we should not be gathering on Sundays (or any other day, for that matter) in church buildings, but rather in homes or in cemeteries (which is the modern day equivalent of catacombs).
Further, we should practice the Sacrament of Reconciliation in the manner of the early Church, that is by public confession of sin, public performance of penance, and exclusion from the Body of Christ of the penitent until his/her penance is complete. We should read Sacred Scripture only in Greek, Latin and Aramaic (English being a language that did not exist in the days of the primitive Church) only, and our liturgies should be conducted in those languages only. Deacons should only be concerned with charity and have no liturgical role at all; women, as St. Paul informed us, should be silent in the assemblies and be obedient to their husbands. I could go on, but this evidently is the Church that you wish to return to.
Second, since you refuse to accept any type of sacramental or theological evolution, I assume that you also agree that the Church can never, and should never, accept or legitimize same-sex unions, abortion, divorce, or any other innovation that the progressive left wishes to impose upon the Church. After all, since history must always be our guide in matters liturgical, it logically follows that it must always be our guide in matters moral, and historically the Church has condemned all the above.
Third, I would suggest that you examine carefully both the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the Church's compendium of magisterial teaching and is far more authoritative than the speculative historical musings of a former professor, and the Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, Presbyterorum Ordinis, of Vatican II. Reviewing the actual teaching of the Church on the nature, mission and vocation of the ministerial or ordained priesthood will be of benefit.
I have little doubt that you might try to trot out the old, tired quote from Joseph Ratzinger about history trumping theology; I welcome that, for, if you are consistent, you will have to admit that this Ratzinger quote would only support the prohibition on the ordination of women. If, as you claim, historically no one was ordained priest in the primitive Church, and since history presents very clearly, from the time of the Fathers until the present moment, that no woman has ever been validly ordained to the priesthood, then the logical conclusion must be that, regardless of any Scriptural or theological basis supporting or opposing women's ordination, the Church simply cannot ordain a woman. History trumps theology, yes?
Finally, I would direct you to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and the definition of the word priest: "one authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God". A man ordained to the sacred order of priest is "authorized" by the Church and the community, "to perform the sacred rites" (liturgies, sacraments and para-liturgical services such as Stations of the Cross) "of a religion" (Catholicism) "especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God" (a priest takes the place of Christ at the liturgy, evidence being that he says, "This is my Body", "This is the cup of my Blood"). Seems pretty clear that the word "priest" is properly used in discussions of those ordained in the Roman Catholic Church.
You accuse me, "CWG", of
You accuse me, "CWG", of ignoring or refusing to accept any kind of sacramental or theological evolution. Please document.
You mention that ancient Christians gathered for worship in the catacombs. In fact, "CWG", catacombs were not regular places of worship, contrary to what you may have learned from your catechism. If you're a catechist or religion teacher, I hope you are not giving bum information to your students.
Your comments about "gathering on Sundays", the sacrament of reconciliation, etc. reflect dichotomous thinking: either keep current practice/belief, or return to some practice/understanding from yesteryear. Such a rigid "either/or", "black-and-white" approach to problem-solving allows for no creativity or adaptation to meet present-day needs of the church.
You mention that St. Paul (1 Tim 11) instructed women to be silent in the assemblies. The question of Pauline authorship aside, this passage would suggest, inter alia, that women "back in the day" were not at all reluctant to express themselves on church matters. "The earliest ecclesial and therefore liturgical space was women's space....It was a context genial to the active participation and leadership of women. Women formed new churches in their homes and functioned as heads of these house churches" (Teresa Berger, WOMEN'S WAYS OF WORSHIP: GENDER ANALYSIS AND LITURGICAL HISTORY, as quoted by Edward Foley, FROM AGE TO AGE: HOW CHRISTIANS HAVE CELEBRATED THE EUCHARIST, p. 9).
On the other hand, if actions speak louder than words, we know how Rome really sees women today: not good enough for presbyteral/episcopal ordination, not good enough for surgical intervention requiring abortion if confronted with a life-threatening pregnancy (as in the Phoenix case), not good enough for executive decision-making roles in the church, especially in the Vatican.
Regarding priesthood, I have the CCC as well as a copy of Vatican II's "Presbyterorum Ordinis". Keep in mind, "CWG", that these references are doctrinal, not historical, in nature. If I want doctrine, I'll look to official teaching. If I want history, I'll look to works on history. To repeat what you labeled that "old, tired" (but valuable) insight of a future pope, "[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16; reprinted 2010). Historical fact trumps non-infallible doctrine. Always.
You refer to "the speculative historical musings of a former professor." To whom are you referring? I ask because all my sources are respected scholars in their professional fields --- theology, history, biblical studies. Please, do not worry about offending anybody. Unlike you, they document their work and identify their authorship.
Given their importance and interrelatedness, I think it behooves me to offer a few observations on priesthood (including women's ordination), liturgy, and sacrifice.
Ratzinger's contribution to the debate on women's ordination does not buttress the official view that the church lacks the authority to ordain women to the presbyterate/episcopate. Indeed, in his Letter clarifying the CDF Responsum, Ratzinger wrote, "It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church [i.e., lack of authority to ordain women] did not arise with the publication of the Letter 'Ordinatio Sacersotalis'...In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church."
And therein lies the problem. JPII did not use his 'ex cathedra' teaching authority (as Ratzinger admitted), nor did the world's bishops --- in concert with the pope --- issue any conciliar teaching that would oblige the faithful to give it definitive assent. Finally, there is no evidence that the universal body of Catholic bishops, while dispersed throughout the world and in union with the pope, has unanimously agreed that the doctrine on women's ordination is definitively to be held.
JPII's claim about lack of ordination authority remains to this day an unfounded assertion. Canon 749.1 states, "No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident." Bishops (including the pope) bear the burden of infallible teaching; this is church law. JPII's teaching has not been "received" by the faithful; reception is an ancient church practice. It effectively acknowledges the role of the Holy Spirit working among all the People of God, not merely among the hierarchs. The Pontifical Biblical Commission determined years ago that sacred scripture cannot be used in support of, or in opposition to, women's ordination.
For an excellent critique of 'Ordinatio Sacerdotalis', I recommend "Tradition and the Ordination of Women" published by the Catholic Theological Society of America in June 1997. Other scholarly contributions can be accessed at:
+ http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/overv_t3.asp, and
+ http://www.womenpriests.org/scholars.asp
With respect to Catholic worship, recent events suggest, in retrospect, a liturgical evolution gone awry when the medieval church came to regard the sacred liturgy no longer as a communal meal (1 Cor 11:17-34) or even as a simply structured communal act of thanksgiving to God (Justin's "First Apology", ca. 150 AD) but, instead, as "'ritual drama', vivid symbolic reenactments of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection" (Nathan Mitchell, CULT AND CONTROVERSY: THE WORSHIP OF THE EUCHARIST OUTSIDE OF MASS, p. 5). "By the time of the early Middle Ages the size of local Christian communities was such that it was no longer possible for them to celebrate the eucharist as a meal. This led to a loss of the sense of community and increasingly to the understanding that the eucharist was a ritual performed by the priest for the people to gaze at and hear" (Gerald T. Floyd, THE CREATIVITY OF CHURCH TEACHING, "Real Presence in the Eucharist," doctoral dissertation at http://www.creativeadvance.blogspot.com).
This notion of sacrifice would require an official priesthood to do the offering, to mediate between God and worshiper. The liturgy became the domain of the ordained priest (as it remains in the Tridentine service), no longer the work of the assembly. (Even today, we see this unhealthy notion being resurrected in the New Roman Missal's distinction between the sacrifice of the presider and that of the congregation.) This evolution contributed to the rise and preservation of an institutional culture in which the clergy were said to "stand on pedestals" --- the higher the rank, the higher the pedestal (and the more colorful and ornate the attire).
In behavioral terms, this liturgical evolution would give new meaning to the word 'sacrifice' --- as in (a) the "sacrifice" of our children (unwilling lambs all) on the altars of clerical sexual abuse, and (b) the "sacrifice" endured by complainants, whistleblowers, and others dealing with hierarchs stonewalling, threatening, and otherwise trying to conceal this institutional sin from the rest of us. Dysfunctional papal and episcopal behavior is enabled not only by our money but also by our indifference to the ramifications of a two-level priesthood.
Finally, let's reconsider our use of the phrase "validly ordained". The word 'valid' means, essentially, "what works or is efficacious". So as not to belabor the point, see my comments on the history of ordained ministry at http://www.ncronline.org/blogs/bulletins-human-side/can-pope-legislate-r...? Suffice it to say the primitive churches did not have ordained ministry. Yet, would you conclude, "CWG", that primitive eucharistic liturgies were "invalid", that primitive Christians did not receive the body and blood of Christ in their eucharists??? I suspect our Christian ancestors would not take kindly to the notion that their sacred liturgies were (quote) invalid (endquote).
If there's anyone resisting "the possibility of unfolding and evolving theological and sacramental understanding in the Church," I would suggest it is not me but, instead, those triumphalist/traditionalist Catholics who pine for the good ol' days just before Vatican II. They display what Jaroslav Pelikan described as "the dead faith of the living". They gravitate toward church authority figures. It is they who believe every Vatican pronouncement is infallible; they are the ones guilty of "creeping infallibility". They prefer the lay passivity of the Tridentine mass. They promote and rely on fear-based doctrine. Indeed, they see doctrine as static.
I suggest instead of putting words into your opponents' mouths, "CWG", or making unfounded assumptions and attempts at distortion, you seriously consider basing your challenges on actual references to specific assertions/statements made by your opponents.
Otherwise, you effectively undercut your efforts.
Unless, of course, that's what you want!
"[I]f you are consistent, you
"[I]f you are consistent, you will have to admit that this Ratzinger quote [to wit, that historical fact trumps non-infallible doctrine] would only support the prohibition on the ordination of women."
Can we be so sure?
Ratzinger has been notably inconsistent lately. He supports use of condoms to prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS, and he plans to go to Assisi to meet with leaders of other religious traditions.
I'm not gonna' hold my breath, but who's to say he might not eventually yield to historical fact and suggest that Rome needs to revisit the issue?
In the meantime, we contine to see women ordained to the Catholic presbyterate and episcopate, and we continue to witness Roman Catholics accepting the legitimacy of such ordinations.
Dear Jamie L Manson, A
Dear Jamie L Manson, A documentary which chronicles the injustice of the ban on women priests in the Roman Catholic Church-at best an oxymoron. When you read your Bible if at all, how do you define the calling to the first Twelve Apostles who were sought after by Jesus Christ? Each of these persons was a male. Are you saying that Jesus Christ did not know what He was doing? Or worse, are we so proud these days that we know better than Jesus Christ?
The Twelve were given a
The Twelve were given a unique and unrepeatable ministry by Jesus. To date, Rome has given excuses, not reasons, for its opposition to women's ordination. JPII's "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" lacks credibilty. May we continue to see women ordained to the presbyterate. God knows, long overdue!
"JPII's "Ordinatio
"JPII's "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" lacks credibilty."
Norma Jean Coon doesn't think so.
Document of Renunciation of Ordination to Diaconate
May she be one of many to seek forgiveness and reconciliation with Christ and His Church!
Norma Jean Coon, PhD, strikes
Norma Jean Coon, PhD, strikes me as confused --- and frightened.
Fear can motivate one to act, but it doesn't necessarily make for a good decision. Only she is qualified to explain her situation and justify her decision.
I suspect she is --- and will remain --- the exception in renouncing her ordination.
Even validly ordained men have renounced their ordinations.
This phenomenon is not new to the church.
Huh. If the "Twelve were
Huh. If the "Twelve were given a unique and unrepeatable ministry by Jesus," why couldn't they have been "given a unique" and continuing ministry through an Apostolic College over time?
To assert "the Twelve were given a unique and unrepeatable ministry" is to adopt the position of the magisterial Reformers over Trent regarding oversight in the Christian community. Why not say so? Then the question becomes, generally, "Why is the Roman Catholic Church not a reformed Christian community?"
There are still phone books for must cities in the United States. Go to the Yellow Pages. Look under "Churches." You'll find sub-headings for Baptists (no bishops), Disciples of Christ (no bishops), Episcopalians (bishops on a leash), Lutherans (no bishops except the ELCA, which have them because their union agreement with Episcopalians requires it), Methodists (bishops on a leash), Presbyterians (the bishop is a committee, the Presbytery), the United Church of Christ (no bishops), what-have-ya.
So, which of these fine groups should the RCC imitate? The ones that equate ecclesiology to their current malleable polity? What fresh work of the Holy Spirit is that? It makes Shekinah Wisdom look like some loopy bag lady, rummaging in the garbage for cans to redeem for recycling.
In reply to your question, I
In reply to your question, I think Francis A. Sullivan, SJ, provides some relevant background in his FROM APOSTLES TO BISHOPS: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EPISCOPACY IN THE EARLY CHURCH (2001). Sullivan is professor emeritus of theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and is considered an expert on the church's magisterium.
Sullivan writes: “We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man as bishop for each of the churches they had founded. The only person in the New Testament whose role resembles that of a bishop is James the ‘brother of the Lord,’ who was most likely designated for his position of leadership in the Jerusalem church by his relationship with Jesus and the special appearance with which he was favored by the risen Jesus. It seems extremely unlikely that he was ‘ordained’ as bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter. Nor does the New Testament evidence support the idea that Peter, Paul or any other apostle became bishop of any one local church or ordained one man as bishop of any local church. One looks in vain to the New Testament for a basis for the idea of ‘an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.”
Why is the ministry of The Twelve considered unique and unrepeatable? It is because these men encountered the risen Jesus and were commissioned by him. They learned from the Master himself. An analogy might be useful. Consider a training environment where participants form an extended circle with each person an arm's length or more apart from fellow participants. The master, i.e., the facilitator, gives the initial participant a card and tells her to read and remember the story appearing thereon (the participant then returns the card to the master). This participant then tells the story to the person to her left, and that person, in turn, tells the story to the person to his left, and so on. Eventually, the last person tells the story to the first participant. The story told by the final participant invariably differs from that told by the first storyteller. The degree of variance may depend on the listening capabilities of the participants. This "handing on" of the story mirrors, albeit in limited fashion, the oral "handing on" of gospel stories and lessons during the formative years of Christianity. Primitive Christians, of course, had the benefit of dialogue and debate to get their story straight! Nonetheless, even today, we can detect differences in a story appearing in more than one gospel.
We should be careful in using terms such as 'apostolic college' and its related 'apostolic succession'. We cannot *prove* there has been (quoting Sullivan) "'an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.'" We simply do not have documentation of a "laying on of hands" extending all the way back to the primitive churches.
The significance of "apostolicity" is its guarantee that the authentic truths of the Christian faith have been handed down since New Testament times by the church's official teachers. We refer to this essential body of teaching as the 'deposit of faith', i.e., all that God has revealed through Christ for our salvation. This doctrinal integrity is not guaranteed by the "laying on of hands" per se but, rather, by the teaching of successive community leaders considered orthodox in their time. We know from church history that not all church teachers who received a "laying on of hands" embraced orthodoxy.
Just because the ministry of The Twelve was unique does not mean that various facets of their ministry were not adopted (and perhaps adapted) by later generations of local church leaders. Sullivan offers a reasonable "take" on how this process might have played out. I recommend you peruse his text for extended treatment of this subject.
At the last supper Jesus
At the last supper Jesus asked His DISCIPLES not just His apostles to do what He did in remembrance of Him. The last supper was a passover meal and at such all are there, men, women and children. Please read the account again. When will sexism in this church finally be gone?
Perhaps your idea of oxymoron
Perhaps your idea of oxymoron is your own prejudice Mr. Manson. Why don't you watch the documentary and see what it has to say?? You seem to believe you know the truth without taking into considerations what others are saying!
Let's not invoke the Bible as
Let's not invoke the Bible as being in opposition to priesthood for both genders. A recent pope - was it JP2? - ordered the Pontifical Biblical Commission to research the issue and report back. Those scripture scholars did so, and found that the Bible presented no support for men-only ordination. The pope then decided to go his own way.
Peter was married; we know
Peter was married; we know this because Jesus healed his mother-in-law. It is extremely likely that ALL the Apostles were married. Therefore, unmarried clergy are just as forbidden as female clergy. We therefore must ignore the diktats of unmarried so-called clerics.
Thank you.
Thank you.
This is a post I sent to
This is a post I sent to WATER regarding Mary Hunt's Pink Smoke essay since my post was rejected by Religion Dispatches.
" Women Priests, Changing the Church, etc. are not the bottom line in my opinion. Given the scientific and philosophical scholarship that has transpired and is ongoing i.e. biblical-historical, epistemological, evolutionary theory, and many other areas, I believe that we are evolving from an Axial Age religion i.e. Catholic Christianity to a post-Axial Age faith phenomenon. If there is better reason to believe that there never was an incarnation or [bodily] resurrection of Jesus rather than reason to believe that there was, -- then also, the doctrinal tradition such as the Mass, Liturgy, Eucharistic celebration is gone. The priesthood is gone including women priests. I believe the Church is evolving rather than changing in the ordinary sense of the term. It takes multidisciplinary study to come to this conclusion. The faith and morals issue will be redefined and continue to be our guide and enlightenment.
I sent the above post (revision in brackets) to Religion Dispatches 2-8-11 but it was rejected. So I am sending it directly to you. For biblical-historical scholarship for example, the Westar Institute is a good group to be in touch with in order to maintain the credibility of your group. I am concerned about the proliferation of ‘religious talk’ on the Internet but how much of it is plausible? Truth is necessary. False, hypocritical, disingenuous pious words do no one any good and eventually come to a bad end. I doubt you are intentionally being disingenuous but I am concerned if you are sufficiently in touch with some important sources of knowledge. Thank you. Marie.
February 12, 2011 2:03 PM "
If the fundamental tenet of Christianity is being challenged by twenty-first century biblical-historical scientific scholarship, it is time to pursue this issue. If other areas of science and philosophy and relevant areas of knowledge demand a new understanding of faith and morals issues then it is time to pursue this also.
Thank you - now can you us
Thank you - now can you us how and whereto find this film so we can enjoy it, too? Love struggle! Elizabeth
I can't help but think that
I can't help but think that if these women were 'allowed' back into the arms of Holy Mother Church, She would very quickly start to look a whole lot different - and THAT really would be Good News!
Jamie, Tom McMahon wrote a
Jamie,
Tom McMahon wrote a commentary entitled "Women will be the ones to save us: A discussion on Human Sexuality" Part 2. His commentary appearing on
www.catholica.com.au is a great parallel to your article.
"I feel in me the vocation of
"I feel in me the vocation of a priest! With what love, O Jesus, would I bear you in my hands, when at the sound of my words you came down from heaven! With what love would I give you to souls! But alas, just as much as I desire to be a priest, I admire and envy the humility of St. Francis of Assisi, and feel the call to imitate him in refusing the sublime dignity of the Priesthood."~St. Therese of Lisieux
When I start hearing women in the Church sounding more like St. Therese and less like Betty Friedan, I'll take them more seriously.
Therese also did some pretty
Therese also did some pretty wacky things regarding her health and care for herself. This was an era when (1) women did not think for themselves and relied on their "superiors" to tell them what to think and what to do -- becoming a priest would have been totally out of the realm of Therese's consciousness; and (2) women were taught that their suffering and deprivation was inherently holy.
While Therese might be a role for some vis-a-vis 19th Century mysticism, she's an annoyingly passive personality regarding 21st Century politics. If many women in the church sound like Betty Friedan, perhaps it's because Ms. Friedan's lessons have yet to be heard and learned. Most of them could care less if you "take them seriously," "Anonymous."
You overlooked: Madeleine
You overlooked:
All French. All 19th century. All women. All acted on their own initiative. None had problems ‘thinking for themselves’. None had to be told ‘what to think and do’ by their superiors. Many came into conflict with priests and bishops. None tried to usurp them. None would have had a problem with the Little Flowers spirituality.
All shining role models for women wanting to be involved in the work of the Church.
The problem with trying to dismiss someone of a different time and culture with a generalisation is that the generalisation is often inappropriate.
As is the dismissal.
Ms Lersch HEre's the issue:
Ms Lersch HEre's the issue: Betty Freidan is irrelevant to 98% of the public
The 1970s were a failure, and are over.
Come help us with the important project of cleaning out the detrius of that era and rebuild!
she's an annoyingly passive
she's an annoyingly passive personality regarding 21st Century politics
I don't see what 21st century politics have to do with being holy. Same goes with Betty Friedan.
And btw - St Therese is also a Doctor of the Church. St Therese has done infinitely more for the well-being of women in the Church more than Betty Friedan could ever hope for. Where Betty demanded that everyone "pay up" for the sufferings of women - and I'm not refuting that women have been maltreated in the past (in fact, Islamists currently maltreat women worldwide) - St Therese merely offered hers to God and united it with Christ's suffering on the cross. It doesn't take a mystic to recognize which method is more efficacious.
They did wacky things....like
They did wacky things....like Jesus???
1. He went into the desert and fasted at length which would not pass the current self care guidelines of most currently accepted health plans;
2. He was obedient to the will of the Father, His "superior", even unto death;
3. He suffered and was deprived justice during his trial, which were not only inherently holy, but formed the basis for the salvation of mankind.
Jesus also taught passive resistance to personal assault, you know the turn the other cheek thing, which I suppose would also be considered annoyingly passive by 21st century standards.
If many women in the church today sound like Betty Friedan, it's because they don't understand the fundamental requirements for holiness or sainthood, which Jesus institued and demonstrated, and Saint Therese modeled well enough to gain entrance into the kingdom of heaven. By the way, at least one former member of this cult, Norma Jean Coon, has figured out that it's all a big farce, and returned to the Church....
So who’s doing wacky things?
PATRIARCHY IS RADICAL
PATRIARCHY IS RADICAL FEMINISM ON STEROIDS.
Its promotion of sexual inequality and gender exclusion is a woefully damaging legacy.
Feminism, on the other hand, is about healing inclusion not damning exclusion.
Perhaps WOC 2007 "ordinanda"
Perhaps WOC 2007 "ordinanda" Norma Jean Coon's recent stance is exemplary as well?
Odd that NCReporter has yet to cover her announcement...
What is this I don't even
What is this I don't even
I am a male Catholic with
I am a male Catholic with BSTh, and MDIV degrees. I retired from my studies at fifty years of age and entered CPE at a local Catholic Hospital in Colorado Springs.
The class consisted of seven women and three men; my self counted among the three men.
I had the ocassion to work with each and every candidate in the program. I found (without exception) all the women to be militantly feminist and prochoice, "sneak-speak" for Pro-Abortion! None of my fellow male CPE candidates shared these views. Furthermore, my knowledge of these women's positions came not as a result of my personal inquiries, but rather from my fellow future Catholic Chaplains asking for my position on the matter.
Saddened, and depressed I decided to visit the sick, elderly, and dying without cirtification and find more satisfaction serving as a lay Catholic unfettered by the "politics" and political correctness so prevelent in our time.
In conclusion I would add that no one sex has spiritual superiority over another, and Christ Jesus decided that "Men" should be priests not the Church. Otherwise, His own Blessed Mother, our mother Mary would have been included among those when Christ initiated the Priesthood at His last supper.
God's Tender Blessings
"Christ Jesus decided that
"Christ Jesus decided that 'Men' should be priests not the Church."
You are factually incorrect. Jesus did not establish any kind of Christian or Catholic priesthood, much less an institutional church. The primitive Christians were led at worship by an unordained presider who served in this role by virtue of (a) baptism and (b) community leadership. The Christian/Catholic priesthood was a historical development, not at all part of primitive Christian experience. Ordination, male or female, is to the presbyterate or episcopate, not to any kind of priesthood. You are as much a priest of God as is your ordained pastor.
For more information about this topic, please see my comments posted August 2 & 5 at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3876.
Please do not confuse non-infallible doctrine with church history. Not the same. As a future pope wrote more than forty years ago, "facts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16; reprinted 2010).
The pure boldness of your
The pure boldness of your heterodoxy is refreshing.
Please elaborate, as I eschew
Please elaborate, as I eschew "heterodoxy" and "orthotoxy" in order to embrace "orthodoxy".
Let me see if I have this
Let me see if I have this straight: you abandoned your studies for certification because you didn't agree with the views of your fellow students? That strikes me as either strange or just disingenuous. Perhaps there's another reason?
Oh, and by the way "Pro-Choice" is not "sneak-speak" for "Pro-Abortion." Perhaps you, as a minister, should give folks credit for meaning what they say, not what you say they mean.
There are plenty of Catholic folks who believe that a woman, any woman, should have the right to choose whether to follow the Church's teachings, or not.
With fewer and fewer male
With fewer and fewer male priests in larger and larger parishes, some of us in many areas may face the choice, accept priests who are women or do without. Choice always is toward God or away from God. Scary isn't.
We may see large Catholic Churches with one priest and many smaller Catholic prayer groups with priests who are male or female, married or single.
Instead of asking for the
Instead of asking for the church to change and allow women and married priests, why aren't we asking another question "why aren't our young men entering the priesthood as they did in the past"?
Perhaps because they are more
Perhaps because they are more self-aware realistic about the impact of forced bachelorhood on their lives?
What if they not only could go to Catholic seminary, but they just might meet a compatible woman there, with whom to share both a life and priesthood?
Let's see, re-open the door to all of the priests who've been given dispensation to marry (easily doubling the pool); open the door to men who cannot commit never to marry (doubling the pool again); open the door to the ordination of married women (doubling the pool of available people again).
Gee, the Holy Spirit will have solved the "priest shortage" by giving us about 8 times as many candidates for the working priesthood!
WOMEN PRIESTS response to the
WOMEN PRIESTS
response to the Jamie Manson article in the NCR 2/15/2011 [reprinted below]
by Tony Equale
For many Catholics who are seeking church reform, the question of the ordination of women to the priesthood is a settled subject. How could there possibly be any disagreement? Women are in every career choice open to men, including the police, and the army. Why not the priesthood? There is no reason.
I am not challenging women's rights. I accept the principle of the egalitarianism for all humankind, and of course that would apply to any role in any organization. But I would not want the defense of that principle to obscure what is at stake with Church reform. For me the question is not whether women should be priests in the Roman church, but whether in a christian community there should be any priests at all.
I claim that the institution of the "sacramental" priesthood as we know it in our times, is a greco-roman elitist innovation that did not exist until well into the 2nd century, a hundred years after the founding of the church. It was designed precisely to eliminate christian egalitarianism, create a hieratic caste, mystify the ordinary people and concentrate power in the hands of the upper class. It represented the unwarranted transformation of a legitimate ministerial role — the presbyter — into an ontological caste that did not previously exist in the christian scheme of things, and certainly not in the mind of Jesus. It was an essential step in bending christianity to the cultural requirements of the class-based society run by the Roman Empire. It makes the people themselves complicit in their own alienation by making it seem impossible for a christian group to have the eucharist except it be performed exclusively by the magical hands of a representative of the (upper class) bishop.
The earliest accounts of the life of christian communities portray a fellowship where fixed caste status for the clergy grounded in ritual alchemy, was not in evidence. Likewise, infrastructure (buildings) if they existed, were a secondary feature of the community. It's not insignificant that the two phenomena seem to have arisen together, suggesting that "buildings," i.e., property and wealth became a factor requiring the creation of new "sacramental structures" that would insure that control stayed in the proper hands. These developments were exactly what made christianity an attractive choice as “new” Religion of the empire. An egalitarian group of slaves and tent-makers operating out of homes and storefronts just would not do for “divine Rome.”
By the 4th century, with the elevation of christianity to the status of State Religion of the Roman Empire, the connection between church property and the Roman upper class was such a conspicuous part of ecclesiastical reality that we see Constantine himself sending his legions to restore North African church buildings to their "rightful" bishops. What made this restoration so shocking, besides the use of imperial force, was that the "rightful" bishops were in most cases the same men who had "handed over" (traditores) the (sacred) books to the Roman authorities during the persecution of Diocletian, causing the "people" (afterwards called “Donatists”) to refuse to receive them back as their bishops. But Constantine had made a huge transfer of basilicas, temples and other buildings to christianity from the Roman polythesitic religions, and he would not abide having "his" imperial church buildings taken over by a mob of disobedient nobodies. Every facet of the empire was run by the nobility. The Empire's new Church would be no different. Precedent had to be set.
"Ordination" functioned in this context to insure a mystified control of the Church and its sacramental life by the upper classes. This is the "priesthood" that the RCWP is banging on the door to enter ... rather than to eliminate in order to return the eucharist to the fellowship of equals. How can we support an elitist anachronism in the name of gender equality? It's time, I think, to stop talking about the church and the "ecclesistical careers" that have been denied women, and begin talking about the kind of living community that Jesus encouraged his followers to form.
Just look at the humiliating scenarios described in the Manson article. Imagine, mature adult christians, so mesmerized by the Roman sect's absurd claims about apostolic fidelity being bound to mechanical legal ritual that they are ordained in the middle of rivers in order to avoid episcopal jurisdictions. This is not rebellion. It is a crass submission to the legalistic mystifications that have been developed to solidify power in the hands of those in control. It is to be complicit in the elevation of caste superiority into a christian category in utter contradiction of the egalitarianism preached by Jesus.
In the late sixties Ivan Illich was something of a guru to a group of priests in the New York area interested in serving the poor and in serious church reform. Many of us learned spanish and the principles of pastoral acculturation at his feet in Puerto Rico and in Mexico. On one occasion we shared with him our enthusiasm for a married deaconate and perhaps the ordination of married men as a first step in the larger reform of mandatory celibacy and the ordination of women. To our surprise he told us he did not agree. "Until clerical culture changes," he said, "the only thing you will accomplish will be to draw this new group of unspoiled laypeople into a dysfunctional clerical culture, effectively adding to the unchristian stratifications within the church. You will just perpetuate something that should not exist."
I hear in those words the very same counsel as offered by Mary Hunt and Elizabeth Schussler-Fiorenza, mentioned by Manson, that "Catholic women should think beyond ordination and seek a church that functions more like ... 'a discipleship of equals'.” The depth of reform that this would entail is truly beyond imagination ... but only because of the hierarchy's insistence on clinging to power and the ideological (dogmatic) props that protect it. Otherwise, it’s not unimaginable at all. It's time to stop begging them for what they will never give ... and at any rate do not own. It is not theirs to give! To seek ordination under these circumstances is to buy into the very system that debases us.
You want to celebrate the eucharist? By all means, do it! But don’t tie it to being ordained a “priest.” And that goes for us all!
2/19/2011
I still don't know what a
I still don't know what a "woman priest" is. Is it like a unicorn? Is it like dividing by zero?
"Is it like dividing by
"Is it like dividing by zero?"
Obviously you never took calculus!
There are many fine
There are many fine Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches.
If you do not believe in the faith of the Catholic Church as outlined by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, then by definition, you are not a Catholic but a Protestant.
Be true to yourself. Stop pretending you are a Catholic to justify your desire for self-affirmation, and declare yourself to be a Protestant, and humbly accept the embrace of Protestantism. To continue to call oneself a Catholic when one is not a Catholic is a lie and arrogant. Accept that you are a Protestant and move on.
If you like blue curtains, don't stay in a house whose host likes red curtains and try to tear them down. Find your own house. In your case, there are plenty of houses with blue curtains. You would be appreciated there, and your tyrannical efforts to impose your preferences on your current host will not be missed. In fact, honor and decency compel you to do so.
Todd on Feb. 22, 2011. You
Todd on Feb. 22, 2011.
You stated:
"There are many fine Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches.
If you do not believe in the faith of the Catholic Church as outlined by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, then by definition, you are not a Catholic but a Protestant.
Be true to yourself. Stop pretending you are a Catholic to justify your desire for self-affirmation, and declare yourself to be a Protestant, and humbly accept the embrace of Protestantism. To continue to call oneself a Catholic when one is not a Catholic is a lie and arrogant. Accept that you are a Protestant and move on.
If you like blue curtains, don't stay in a house whose host likes red curtains and try to tear them down. Find your own house. In your case, there are plenty of houses with blue curtains. You would be appreciated there, and your tyrannical efforts to impose your preferences on your current host will not be missed. In fact, honor and decency compel you to do so."
---------------------------------------
The word "Catholic" means universal. Why should anyone HAVE to leave? And why should anyone be shown the door out?
It is God----not the Magisterium----who calls individuals to service of God and of the people.
Post new comment