The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionLCWR leaders meet with Midwest bishops
May. 11, 2010
St. John's Abbey in Collegeville, Minn.
Leaders of 17 women's religious communities in the upper Midwest have met with six of their bishops, igniting a conversation about shared leadership in the church amid a Vatican probe into the women's leadership conference.
Six bishops met with 35 women's congregational leaders at a regional meeting of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious last month at St. John's Abbey in Collegeville, Minn. They plan to stay in touch through a quarterly bulletin and meet again in 2012.
The bishops of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota were invited by LCWR's Region 11 congregations in April 2009 in the wake of a Vatican doctrinal investigation of the largest U.S. women's religious leadership organization. A separate Vatican study announced in December 2008 is assessing the quality of life in apostolic women's religious communities in the United States.
The Vatican investigation was not part of the conversation at the April 22 meeting in Collegeville, nor was it intended to be, Sr. Tierney Trueman, Region 11 chair of LCWR, and leader of the Sisters of Saint Francis of Rochester, Minn., said in a phone interview Tuesday from Rome.
Trueman said the women religious' invitation to bishops "comes out of assuming our responsibility as we see our own call to ministry."
"We invited them. We took a pro-active stance and decided not to wait for them to invite us," Trueman said. "We took the initiative.
"We simply believe in dialogue. It's important to begin to find ways to discuss shared responsibility for leadership in our church."
Sr. Marlene Weisenbeck, president of the Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration La Crosse, Wis., and president of the LCWR, was encouraged by the meeting of bishops and women religious.
"This is a real model, a real model for us to go forward. We don't have anything and they [the bishops] don't have anything to lose," Weisenbeck told NCR in Rome.
Weisenbeck and Trueman are in Rome for a meeting of the International Union of Superiors General. About 800 women religious are attending from Europe, Asia; Africa, the Americas and Oceania.
Susan Sink, spokeswoman for the Sisters of the Order of Saint Benedict in St. Joseph, Minn., said the meeting was seen as very successful, but that there was some anxiety leading up to it, given the investigations.
While it is standard for individual religious communities to meet regularly with their bishop, a meeting with all of a region's bishops is less common. Trueman said each of the bishops responded to the invitation; some couldn't come because of illness or previous engagements.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo, N.D. declined to be interviewed. Archbishop John Nienstedt and Bishop Lee Piche of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minn., and Bishop John Kinney of St. Cloud, Minn., were unavailable for comment. Neither of the other two bishops who attended responded immediately to NCR's request for comment. They are Bishop John Quinn of Winona, Minn., and Bishop Paul Zipfel of Bismarck, N.D.
Thirty-five congregational leaders from 17 women's religious communities in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota attended.
A statement from LCWR Region 11 said the meeting was a chance for participants to reflect and share their experience of leadership in the church, gain a greater understanding of each other's roles, and look for ways to collaborate.
They also acknowledged the church's growing ethnic diversity and that they might invite people of many cultures to a future meeting to hear their needs in the church and world today.
The Leadership Conference of Women Religious consists of leaders of Catholic women religious congregations in the U.S. Its 1,500 members represent most of the tens of thousands of women religious in the U.S.
Read more stories about the apostolic visitations of U.S. women religious: NCRonline.org/apostolicvisitation
[Cheryl Wittenauer is a freelance reporter and writer in St. Louis. NCR editor Tom Fox contributed to this story from Rome.]
We have a divergence in the
We have a divergence in the Church between the increasingly conservative Bishops appointed by the Pope and the increasingly liberal members of the LCWR who at least are elected by their own Orders. As a lay person, I can only watch with interest as this plays out. Did the LCWR actually use the word "ministry" to describe their vocation in front of the all-male members of the hierarchy ? Good. Church needs to look at sacrament of Holy Orders. If Biblical fundamentalism tells us that all twelve Apostles were male, okay, let's look at the "total persona" of the Apostles. We know at least one was married, and we are reasonably certain that all were Semitic, as Jewish residents of Galilee. Using the logic that all Apostles were men, therefore the Church only has the authority to ordain men, then what authority exists to ordain Gentiles ? I'm uncomfortable with the rigidity of the hierarcy as well as the liberalness of the Sisters. Maybe now is the time for the laity to step up their involvement, as I think Vatican II envisioned, and bridge the gulf.
Your problem is that you're
Your problem is that you're ignoring the fact that male priests are a doctrine of the Church, and so cannot be done away with. If the Church ever got doctrine wrong, then Jesus was wrong when he said "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it". This is the entire point of the Catholic Church, the fact that it will protect doctrine.
The Church can't ordain women. If it ever did then it would no longer be the Catholic Church, but simply a Church whose doctrine is fallible.
Doctrine Schmoctrine who the
Doctrine Schmoctrine who the hail cares!!!? The church can't ordain women is code for the church is so chocked full of mysogny it won't ordain women. Go tell that to yada yada Levada and all the other doctrinair non-believers that pass themselves off as Most Reverend .... NOT!
Brett Adams on May. 13, 2010.
Brett Adams on May. 13, 2010.
You stated:
"Your problem is that you're ignoring the fact that male priests are a doctrine of the Church, and so cannot be done away with. If the Church ever got doctrine wrong, then Jesus was wrong when he said "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it". This is the entire point of the Catholic Church, the fact that it will protect doctrine.
The Church can't ordain women. If it ever did then it would no longer be the Catholic Church, but simply a Church whose doctrine is fallible."
-------------------------------
Papal infallibility was declared a doctrine in 1870 (papacy of Pius IX). So before that time---no pope was infallible? Was St. Peter infallible? Don't think so.
Jesus stated that he will be with the CHURCH (not the Pope) until the end of time. WE are the CHURCH, all of us----not just the Pope, or Hierarchy.
Your problem, Brett, is you associate church politics with doctrine. In Europe (Communist nations) women were ordained validly to minister to people in trenches. The church has 'declared' many things as 'doctrine' in one era and came back in another era to state (and here's the line) "And in the writings (state encycle) of (Pope N) of happy memory, we read....."
The Church cannot PROVE conclusively that no women were present at the Last Supper (keep in mind that none of the WRITERS of the Gospel were actually there). Passover meals included women and children because women and children were at the first passover. In the gospels, only one states that Peter and John came to Jesus asking if they should prepare "the Meal." In earlier accounts, the Gospels state "Disciples came to Jesus to ask if they
should prepare for the Meal."
Brett, women prepared for the Meal then, just as Jewish women prepare the Passover meal today. The men got the lamb, gave it to the women---and they took over. And they were present at the Supper---they served, sat and ate, too. There may have been many tables (Scriptures tell us that the room was large---for only 13 men?), but women and children were present.
Wrong again. YOu have a false
Wrong again.
YOu have a false analogy on your hands in your reference to Papal infallibility. It was true before it was defined, but the need came for it to be defined. Just as the Trinity was true before it was defined, so was Papal Infallibility.
The other problem is that the Church has defined the priesthood as male. And all of you can scream and cry to the Heavens all you want, but it's not going to change anything. You can't change nature, my friend.
You also need to figure out what is infallible and what is not. A Pope's encylical is not infallible. A Church Council definition of doctrine is.
The last problem with what you said was in reference to the Meal. We must always remember that Mass isn't just a Meal, it is a sacrifice AND a meal. Furthermore, you can't tell me that women should be priestesses and give your theological proof as the fact that women prepared the Last Supper. The women prepared it (like a Deacon does at Mass. The all-Male deaconite, by-the-way, is not infallible teaching), but Jesus is the one that made it his body and blood.
No women were ever validly ordained. The Church that you say you belong to, some kind of fallible Church, is only in your mind. The Catholic Church is infallible, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. That is the entire point of the Catholic Church, the idea that Christ founded it and would never let it go astray in matters of doctrine.
The bigger issue is that nothing that I said matters to you. You're going to take it, and totally disregard it. You wouldn't believe it even if Christ came and told you so, because you are so blind. Just as the Jewish leaders refused to see the Truth because they wanted to hold onto their "happy lies", you too will only realize the Truth when you are, hopefully, in Heaven. G-d bless.
Brett Adams on May. 14,
Brett Adams on May. 14, 2010.
You stated:
"Wrong again.
YOu have a false analogy on your hands in your reference to Papal infallibility. It was true before it was defined, but the need came for it to be defined. Just as the Trinity was true before it was defined, so was Papal Infallibility.
The other problem is that the Church has defined the priesthood as male. And all of you can scream and cry to the Heavens all you want, but it's not going to change anything. You can't change nature, my friend.etc, etc"
---------------------------------------------------
OK, Brett---let's just go through your arguments point by point. It took centuries for the theology of the Trinity to be defined. And there is still a point of contention between our Sister Church (the Orthodox Church) and Catholicism about the 'filioque' phrase.
But Papal Infallibility (defined in 1870) isn't that kind of dogma. You stated that the "need came for it to be defined" and so it was. What need?
We increasingly see popes, cardinals, arch/bishops as flawed individuals, just as we all are. Popes are not sprinkled with sacred dust by the Holy Spirit at their election which makes them superhuman. Most educated persons do not believe in that fairy tale. The "Infallibility" belongs to the whole of the "Body of Christ" not to the episcopal leadership alone---WE all are the Church.
We have grown beyond seeing episcopal leaders as not being swayed by forces of personal ego, personal insecurities and psychological fears. We certainly saw this in the past centuries from popes who were far from 'infallible' in their actions and their moral lives.
Let me illustrate: We have had so many bad popes---that we would have to have a huge Papal Rogues Poster to list all of them. But I will take just a few. We go back to Sixtus III (432-40) who was put on trial for seducing a nun (by the way, his defense was to quote the words of Christ--"Let you who are without sin cast the first stone." Or how about Benedict IX (1032-48) who shocked even hardened Cardinals by debauching young boys in the Lateran Palace. St. Peter Damian wrote of him that he was "a wretch who feasted on immorality--a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest." Infallible, Brett, hmm?
Or how about the pope who could be called the 'patron saint' of pedophilia,
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)? After he massacred the entire population in the town of Palestrina (Italy), Boniface VIII indulged in menages with a married woman and her daughter. And he was renowned throughout Rome as one who shamelessly had sex with young boys. He declared that "having sex with young boys was no more a sin than rubbing one hand against the other." It was no wonder that the poet, Dante in writing his "Divine Comedy"---Part I 'Inferno', reserved a special place in Hell just for him---the eight circle. Infallible, Brett, PLEEEEEEZE!
And I could go on and on listing fallible popes(and they don't get any better)---right up to the pope who had himself declared "infallible."
The days of the Divine Right of Kings and the Ancien Regime are OVER. What we need are popes who recognize that they and other hierarchs make unwise decisions from time to time. Popes need to recognize that no person remains unchanged by the experience of power. Some are perverted to tyranny. Some are corrupted by flattery and self-indulgences. And some very few are tempered to wisdom by their understanding of the consequences of executive
action.
Normally, I would agree with you that an encyclical does not have the rank of
a decretal letter--which IS USED to declare an infallible doctrine or to pronounce the canonization of a saint. A constitution is a higher ranking document to declare a teaching that is of a substantial nature---central to the entire Church. Papal bulls, with their red seals, indicate a very solemn
pronouncement---and are higher ranking documents than encyclicals. So is the 'moto proprio' written by the pope himself, signed in his own hand and use to make papal appointments.
But after John Paul II wrote "Dominus Iesus" and declared the subject of women being ordained as priests closed, Cardinal Ratzinger, the Enforcer---distorted JP II's words by stating, "And that's infallible."
Finally, my theological proof about the Last Supper. Yes, it is both a meal and a sacrifice. But it is the Meal and Sacrifice offered by Jesus. It is HE (not the officiating priest) who is offered to God as Victim. It is JESUS, who invites us all to the MEAL---not the officiating priest. The SEX of the one who pronounces the WORDS of Jesus makes no difference. We do not receive the body and blood of the officiating priest. We receive JESUS. The priest is to mirror Jesus---not physically----but spiritually.
Your comment about "you can't change nature" I assume refers to women and men.
And I could carry on a debate with you with that....but I've said enough here.
Lies, Brett? You've swallowed all the 'baloney' that you have been fed by the Official Church. You need a solid course in Church History.
Your "theological" point
Your "theological" point denies an extremely important teaching of the priesthood, the ontological change presented with Holy Orders. If it did not matter who said the words, than the Eucharistic Prayer would not read, "This is MY body." Priests are "alter-Christus" aka other Christs. They have a change in their soul that unites them very specially to Christ. This is why only priests can consecrate the Eucharist. In a very unique way, Christ offers to the priest the ability to sacrifice themselves. Your proof is flawed.
Brett -If the Church is and
Brett -If the Church is and has always been infallible, why is it that so many "doctrines" have been changed over the centuries? The church used to teach that charging interest on loans was sinful; later that was changed. The Church until
VERY, very recently taught that the souls of unbaptized babies go to limbo; limbo was erased by the Pope not too long ago. One of my favorite pastors used to say that the saying that the gates of hell would not prevail (against the Church) means NOT that the Church would never make a mistake, but that God would never allow mistakes, or evil, to continue and PREVAIL over it. Isn't that a much more reasonable and comforting way to understand that saying isasmuch as there is no question but that the Church has erred in its teachings from time to time?
The doctrine arguement is old
The doctrine arguement is old hat. Women's ordination is not the critical issue. The need for feminine influence in Church IS critical. The behavior of any, all male societies cannot but perform the acts now known to the public; that's known from history. If celibacy in the Roman priesthood is to continue then let the mind, heart, prayerfulness and intuition of women be at the decision making table concerning the ordination of priests and bishops. Doctrine is one part of Truth; Scripture, Old and New, another. Women turned the wheels of faith numerous times in Scripture.
O yes the ordination of women
O yes the ordination of women is imperative to the catholic church. Why? Because it goes to bringing about the Kingdom of God as opposed to thwarting it.
1. In Christ there is no male or female.
2. Women are created in the image and likeness of God.
3. Mary changed God into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
4. Mary a woman, the Mother of God, was the first Priest.
5. By accepting Baptism we become a priestly people.
6. Mary Magdalein is the thirteenth apostle. Like Peter, the first Pope she was a witness to Jesus' rising from the dead. Mary Magdelein has been slandered throughout history as a prostitute because she in fact was a leader on par with the leadership of Peter.
It is the greatest failure of faith when the feminine face of God is silenced and hidden. Power and privildge for men has selfishly and narcisscistically supplanted the hope of salvation for the world for too long.
The gift of women Priests is the balm of Gilead. It is also strong medicine for the hardened hearts of stiff necked prejudice men and women. Releasing the healing power of women Priests for an already desparate and wounded world is exigent. The People of God have been starved of the grace, wisdom, courage, integrity, and undying belief that women as leaders, preachers and Priests could bring.
Until women are ordained to the office and jurisdiction of Priesthood, until they preach and teach The People of God at Mass each Sunday and every other day alongside men, the reign of God will not come to pass because of our unrepentant disbelief.
Beautifully stated!Thank you!
Beautifully stated!Thank you! PEOPLE OF GOD IS WHO WE ARE! All of us! Mitred and unmitred! Trousered and untrousered! Red shoes and bare footed! Educated and uneducated!Too rich and too poor! All of us! Baptized Children of God!We are the CHURCH! Vowed and unvowed!
DID JESUS DRESS LIKE CAIPHAS THE HIGH PRIEST?
No, HE WORE THE ROBE HIS MOTHER MADE FOR HIM!
The doctrine that the gates
The doctrine that the gates of hell will not prevail against is contained in the articles of the Creed. The male priesthood is another matter entirely.
There's no question in my
There's no question in my mind about who's exercising real leadership in the Church these days. It's the women religious. Our prayers and support are with you, dear sisters! Keep up the collegial and prophetic work!
This is nonsense. Does the
This is nonsense. Does the LCWR want to show leadership? Then open their files and allow investigators to find out what they know about nuns abusing children. They are every bit as guilty as the bishops in stonewalling investigations in to sexual and physical abuse of children by nuns.
I am sick to death of the LCWR whining about the bishops holding them back from their "rightful place in the church". Do they want leadership roles? Let them earn them. They can start by coming clean about nun abuse relative to children in their care.
I was physically abused by nuns as a grammar school student and sexually harrassed by nuns as a high schooler and seminarian. When is that sort of abuse going to be investigated?
First...The LCWR is not like
First...The LCWR is not like Rome and its male organizational structure where there is a definite line of authority from the Pope down and all subordinates must obey their superiors. Membership in the LCWR is voluntary, not mandatory like the male side of the equation. LCWR holds no sway over its members. Sister and nun groups can join and unjoin at their whim. The LCWR is a resource for Sisters and Nuns, not an authoritarian structure that dictates rules and orders and demands subservience from its members. That would be Rome. That would be the boys' club, not the girls' club.
Second...If you have a gripe with a Sister(s)/Nun(s), take it up with those individuals. Take them to court. Take their order to court. Let the court decide whether or not there was physical abuse or sexual harrassment. Unlike Rome, archdioceses, dioceses, etc., the LCWR does not have any authority over sisters/nuns and therefore does not owe you or anyone an apology for any disgraceful actions of their member sisters. The abusing sisters/nuns owe you an apology and perhaps their orders do, too, but not the LCWR
Third...Were some of those sisters/nuns members of the National Education Associaton? If they were, perhaps the NEA owes you an apology? PTA? Sierra Club? Sam's Club? Being a member of an organization doesn't make that organizaton responsible for the actions of its members.
How can these women demand
How can these women demand leadership roles in the church when they have successfully stonewalled any investigation of child abuse by nuns for years?
Thomas Michael Barnes on May.
Thomas Michael Barnes on May. 12, 2010.
You stated:
"How can these women demand leadership roles in the church when they have successfully stonewalled any investigation of child abuse by nuns for years?"
---------------------------
This past week-end all the radio stations and the local newspapers told the story of a priest in a local diocese who was accused of abusing a youth. His name was given. The diocese did not give permission to use his name---he was accused and his name was in the news.
Do you think that if a 'nun' abused a kid and it was reported---that her name wouldn't be on radio, tv and in the newspapers, too? And as a blogger stated just above---the LCWR isn't the Law 'n Order of religious communities. They are liasons between one congregation and another. And the LCWR doesn't demand anything that they haven't earned. They were elected to their roles by their peers---not appointed by Rome.
Yup, the Bishops remain
Yup, the Bishops remain silent again against the directives from Rome.
Leave it to the women to
Leave it to the women to think of a better way to dialogue! And again I ask........why are there no investigations of US male religious communities????
That is a very pertinent
That is a very pertinent question, Mom! I wondered the same thing, myself.
These male communities should also be investigated by the Vatican, too! Let's seen what will be uncovered there!
They already were! The
They already were! The VISITATION of the seminaries and religious houses of men happened a few years ago. It is not a crusade against women!
I wish Mother Clare would come and visit my community. I haven't been told if she is or not but I would be glad to tell her how much I love my life and this Church!
It is very encouraging to see
It is very encouraging to see that Women Religious are taking the initiative to engage in “dialogic trust” with church hierarchy. Until now trust has been trashed and the possibility of honest dialog, reconciliation and redemption destroyed because of hierarchical arrogance.
Redeeming the Enlightenment AND RELIGION: In his book “Redeeming the Enlightenment”, 2010 copyright, Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publisher, Bruce K. Ward speaks to the redemption of Enlightenment by way of bringing Christian sensitivity to the “liberal virtues” of the Enlightenment (perhaps most notably the virtues of tolerance and compassion). Truth is, not only does Enlightenment Rationality need the dialogic trust of compassionate tolerance but so does Faith.
The premise of any meaningful dialog is trust between the parties. Religion (faith) and Enlightenment (reason) can dialog only when both accept that there is truth to be found in difference, and that by trustful dialog truth can be discerned for purposes of symbiotic trust and mutual respect. This is the crux of the problem: ENLIGHTENMENT CANNOT BE REDEEMED EXCEPT RELIGION IS REDEEMED WITH IT.
It’s the analogous problem pointed out by Walter Brueggemann, that the desecration of nature isn’t likely to be remedied (redeemed) except the alienation and desecration of women are remedied at the same time. http://justifiedliving.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977...
And so it is with Enlightenment and religion, one cannot be redeemed except the other is redeemed at the same time. What that means is that the common premise of evolving consciousness/ transformation (trustful communication) applies mutually to faith and reason, to religion and enlightenment. The obstacle to trust is fixation in a worldview (static) that makes no sense to modern consciousness. http://justifiedliving.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978... http://justifiedliving.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978...
Who were the bishops who
Who were the bishops who attended?
They were iterated in the
They were iterated in the article. Only 6 bishops attended.
This is the kind of real
This is the kind of real leadership that the good women of the LCWR provide. Hats off to them and also the bishops who met with them. If we are ever to free ourselves from the mud that has stuck us in Trent, we need meetings like this to take place all over the Catholic World.
Maybe it is too much to ask
Maybe it is too much to ask of bishops who are used to their
'boys club', but it would have been nice to read that the bishops who had been present were later available to make statements, and had generally viewed the exchange with favor. Hopefully they did. I admire the Sisters for taking the initiative when actually their wonderful apostolates go on daily with or without praise from the bishops. Centuries of Catholic tradition in which women were seen and seldom heard, except for a few outspoken female saints, will not be overcome in short order. But this action of the Sisters and the willingness of the bishops to engage in the dialogue certainly seems like a good start.
Good going Sisters!
Good going Sisters!
I read this article after
I read this article after having read Tom Fox's summary of the UISG assembly in Rome. One thing really became apparent. Vocally reticent U.S. bishop-leaders all and each declined comment on one day's dialogue with a group of midwestern women religious. But Cardinal Rode's substitute spoke publically, apparently transformed and definitely impressed favorably, at the end of the USIG event. What a contrast!
A hearty "Brava" to the
A hearty "Brava" to the leaders of these religious communities of women. This is exactly what we should be doing. Dialog, a human face, bonds of common concern will serve to counter growing divisions.
We can all be grateful for this example of evangelical courage.
Mary Aquin O'Neill, RSM
Pope Benedict XVI and his
Pope Benedict XVI and his cronies in the Vatican could take a lesson from more shepherd-like hierarchy. Of course, the hierarchic members who attended did not comment publically---fear of reprisals??????
Huh?
Huh?
?
?
What is wrong with those
What is wrong with those bishops? Why in heaven's (or hell's) name would they decline comment on an unprecedented meeting with women religious? Are they too afraid of being upstaged and outclassed by these holy, Spirit-filled women? Again, the hierarchy has missed out on a historic chance to take a collegial stance with the REAL ministers in today's Church!!! What a shame!
Good work, ladies, and keep it up! You are the true Hands of God in today's increasingly deteriorating hierarchical Church!!
Way to go Sisters! I hear
Way to go Sisters! I hear your voice as the Good Shepherd. Lead us through this valley.
As far as I am concerned the
As far as I am concerned the LCWR Sisters are the real leaders, the real believers, and the real Priestly Class in the RCC today. Thank-you dear Sisters and thank God.
Always remember who actually
Always remember who actually wields the day to day power in the Church bureaucracy, the women religious do. Priests control the sacramental life, but if you want to see the Church as a bureaucratic form brought to its knees, watch the women religious take a month off for contemplative prayer. Nothing will happen in the Church and panic will reign as filing does not get done, correspondence will cease and Bishops will have to do their own laundry.
Would someone tell me why
Would someone tell me why 'superiors'are now going by the name of president? It's not as if they are running a corporation!! No wonder they is so much confusion about what religious do?
Religious communities are supposed to be working with the bishops of their diocese so why is this such a big deal?
This is like making news out of nothing!
Well, the comments on this
Well, the comments on this post have certainly produced much heat and, little if any light. There has been much too much speaking from one's ideology rather than a search for truth.
I can appreciate the frustration of both side, those who seek truth and those who possess truth in certainty.
There also needs to be many clarifications. I wish someone would give the name of the pope and the date for the infallible definition of the "doctrine" that only males can be ordained.
It is true that the teaching of the Church, based on classicist principle, that only males can be ordained, but is this "doctrine" a "Dogma" of the Faith like the statements in the Creed or the Assumption? If not, we should remember it was only a short time ago that the Church rejected slavery, and accept the principle of usury.
Perhaps a part of the difficulty of what has been called "creeping infallibility,' that is that nearly every theological or moral statement made by the Holy Father is to be accepted "as if it were infallible." This point of view seems to be creeping even further to the statements of Vatican Congregations and even individual leaders.
Anyway, somebody, please shed more light and less heat on this issue.
Post new comment