The Independent News Source
NCR classifieds - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Religious life: Another opinion about its scriptural underpinnings
Mar. 30, 2010
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Fr. Michael Crosby
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionIn light of the ongoing Vatican investigation of U.S. Women Religious, Immaculate Heart of Mary Sr. Sandra Schneiders recently wrote in the National Catholic Reporter a very thorough apologia regarding many of the present forms in which it is being expressed: “Discerning Ministerial Religious Life Today.” When I saw it there, I took it out for future reading.
Not long after this I was asked to give a keynote at the Spring Chapter of a large group of Women Religious. The theme they gave me was “Discipleship and Religious Life.” The origin of the title, they told me, was Schneiders’ article. Not yet having read it, I accepted, thinking I’d develop notions of discipleship I have discussed in my own writings based in the Gospels of Matthew and John.
When I read her article, I found her “Historical Overview” one of the best and most succinct summaries I have read regarding the status question vis-à-vis what she calls “Ministerial Religious Life.” However, while I agreed wholeheartedly with her application of the scriptures to the practical considerations she used to close her article, I found myself having serious reservations with the scriptural part of her “Biblical and Theological Considerations.”
Having been taught by Sandra Schneiders at the Graduate Theological Union while I was getting my PhD, I realized I was questioning a formidable biblical scholar—one who has actually been a leader in the Catholic Biblical Association and one who helped edit its quarterly. Furthermore, since graduating I’ve only disagreed with her once--and that privately (regarding our differences as to the identity of “the Beloved Disciple”). However here I think that, given the public nature of her NCR article, some key elements of her argument, especially regarding her “biblical model” for ministerial Religious life, invite a critique. In the process I look forward to a spirited dialogue on the issue.
In this article I want to do two things: 1) share my differences with Schneider’s biblical arguments and 2) why I do not believe one can find any clear biblical foundation for ministerial religious life actually based in the scriptures as we know them today. I do this making a critical nuance based on the two fonts that constitute Catholicism: scriptures and tradition: while there may be no real biblical basis for ministerial religious life (or any other form of religious life as we know it today), it certainly has some foundation in the early church (before the cenobites and monastics) in the virgins and widows (even though we have no clear evidence of them living communally until after apostolic times). In fine, religious life has come from our tradition with many wonderful results; however any appeal to a scriptural basis for it is shaky at best, especially when we consider its basis in an unique form of discipleship or from seeking a clear biblical mandate for the vows as we live them.
The Lack of a Clear Biblical Foundation for Ministerial Religious Life
In her fifth paragraph discussing “Biblical and Theological Considerations,” Schneiders begins by stating that “all Jesus’ disciples are called to mission.” She then distinguishes various ways this was done at the time of Jesus: 1) family-based disciples (like Martha, Mary and Lazarus of Bethany (see Lk. 10:38-42; Jn. 11:5); 2) those promoting “just and generous involvement in secular occupations” (Zacchaeus [Lk. 19:2-9]) or the Royal Official [Jn. 46-54]); and, finally, 3) her thesis regarding a scriptural foundation for ministerial religious life. This is found in “the characteristic features” of a definite “lifeform which was learned by his disciples from Jesus himself: ”. . . there was one rather small group of women and men (see Lk. 8:1-3) whom Jesus called to abandon everything—home or fixed abode of any kind, family of origin, marriage and progeny, all personal property, occupation or profession—to be in his company on a 24/7 basis, to take on in real time his itinerant form of life, to participate in his daily fulltime ministry of announcing the Gospel in word and deed that was so intense that they sometimes :did not even have time to eat” (see Mk. 6:31), to be intensively apprenticed to and formed by him, to be sent out by him to do the very deeds of teaching, healing, liberating, and enlivening that he did (see Lk.:1-11; Mk. 6: 7-13), and after the Resurrection to continue, full time his lifestyle and ministry even unto the laying down of their lives (see Mt. 28:16-20; Jn. 21; Acts 1:7-8, 12-14 and elsewhere.
Immediately in the next paragraph Schneiders names “some members of this small itinerant group: Mary Magdalene, Simon Peter, Susanna, James and John—and later members who were assimilated to this group like Paul and Barnabas.” She declares: “This is the group, the form of discipleship, which supplies the primary biblical model for ministerial Religious life.”
As a member of the Capuchin Franciscans, trying to follow Francis of Assisi’s “evangelical” calling, I sure wish I could ditto the point above as definitively as Schneiders. I just can’t; a critical exegesis of the scriptures invites challenge.
First of all, for someone who taught me a good portion of my biblical exegesis, Sandra Schneiders violates a critical thesis: don’t proof text. She does this in her thesis paragraph by jumping from one synoptic writer to another. Indeed, here she refers to all the Synoptics, including Luke’s Acts of the Apostles. Each of the synoptics has a certain lens or theological viewpoint. Theologically they are quite different.
Secondly, if we do allow for her proof texting, there are serious problems with it. These I want to raise up here.
Maybe Schneiders, by referring to a “form of discipleship” that included the women is safe insofar as any “form,” short of formal discipleship (i.e., being called by the historical Jesus), would apply. However, contra Schneiders (as well as Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza), I am one of those who cannot conclude that, in that male-only world, that there exists any formal call to a specific discipleship in any of the gospels that includes women. In the broader sense of women following Jesus, there is foundation; but not in any listing of “disciples” as such. Consequently the most that can be said of women has been well-argued in a 2007 article by In-Cheol Shin in Neotestamentica. He notes that, given their social status, the most a writer like Matthew can do is afford women the role of being “indirectly adherent disciples;” the men named formally as disciples are “directly adherent disciples.”
In her key paragraph (above) Schneiders also refers to this “rather small group of women and men (see Lk. 8:1-3) whom Jesus called to abandon everything . . ..” The actual scriptural passage refers to the whole group as consisting of “the twelve. . . and also some women.” Furthermore she fails to note that the very text she references ends by saying that the women (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, the wife of Chuza, and Susanna (and many others) “provided for them [i.e., Jesus and the twelve] out of their means.” If they have abandoned “everything,” what means do they have available to provide for Jesus and “the twelve”?
Another concern is that the biblical text that Schneiders uses to indicate “some to whom Jesus proposed this itinerant form of discipleship, like the ‘rich young man,’ did not accept the invitation (see Mt. 19:16-22).” She would have done much, much better to buttress her argument about the “small group . . . whom Jesus called to abandon everything” had she used its parallel in Luke 18:18-23. In it, going beyond the question about inheriting eternal life to what is a fuller form of discipleship, while Mark (10:17-22) and Matthew have Jesus saying he should “go, sell what you possess and give to the poor; and you will have treasure in heaven; and follow me,” it is Luke who makes it an absolute: “Sell all that you have. . .”
Almost every New Testament scholar will say Luke is much more radical about wealth/poverty issues than Mark and Matthew. Indeed in my own doctoral thesis written while in Berkeley at the Jesuit School of Theology and the Graduate Theological Union where Sandra Schneiders taught, I argue that, despite Matthew quoting Jesus as saying he had nowhere to lay his head (8:20; Lk. 9:58), a point also made by Schneiders as an argument for the itinerancy of Jesus and his select disciples, a clear case can be made for Jesus himself having his own house, based in Capernaum. The Greek makes Capernaum his “house-town” (Mt. 4:13). Furthermore, as I also have shown elsewhere, just the differences in Matthew’s and Luke’s beatitudes show that Luke was writing to a more economically depressed community of house churches than was Matthew.
Returning to Schneiders’ inclusion of Peter (one of the twelve) in this unique group who left everything to follow Jesus, again an inclusive sourcing in the scriptures for a consistent basis cannot be found. In Mark and Matthew, Peter’s call to discipleship involves him leaving the nets he shared with Andrew to follow Jesus; in Luke, Peter and his partners James and John leave “everything and followed him” (Lk. 5:11). The difference between leaving everything to follow Jesus and “leaving their nets” to follow Jesus is the difference in logical argument between an absolute and universal verses the particular or specific. Something is particular unless it is clearly universal. Luke makes a “universal;” Mark and Matthew do not.
When I find myself in discussions with people who take the New Testament literally, by proof-texting, the above difference is often something I point out. I begin by asking such literalists: “When did Jesus call Peter to discipleship: before or after the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law in his [Peter’s] house?” They never know.
In Mark (1:29) and Matthew (8:14), the healing of Simon/Peter’s mother-in-law in the house of Peter [and Andrew] takes place after their call to discipleship and their “leaving” their nets. In Luke it comes (4:38) before Simon’s call to discipleship (5:11). In Mark and Matthew, the nature of the call to discipleship does not demand an absolute renunciation of “everything;” in Luke, this call is much more universally demanding. It would have been good had Sandra Schneiders noted the different (contradicting?) biblical theologies at work here.
Furthermore, if Peter is to be included in the unique group modeling ministerial religious life, beyond the contradictions related to what we call the vow of poverty (noted above), what are we to do when we know Peter didn’t leave his wife (see Mark and Matthew above)? First Corinthians is one of the first epistles to be written. There Paul argues to “the right” of being accompanied by a wife “as the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas (9:5)?” Indeed, in this text, Paul writes just the opposite of Schneiders’ contention that part of being in this unique group of disciples involves the abandonment of “occupation or profession.” It seems the opposite is argued when Paul immediately states: “Is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living (9:6)?”
In other places I have shown that there is no clear biblical mandate for celibacy and that the two biblical sources for it do not apply directly to celibacy as we know it as a foundation for “ministerial Religious life.” Matthew 19:10-12 makes the case for future (permanent) celibacy vis-à-vis the aggrieved party in a marriage while 1 Cor. 7:25 about Paul’s “opinion” related to remaining unmarried (i.e., chaste/celibate) was articulated from the “view of the present crisis,” i.e. the end of the world. Indeed, before giving his own human “opinion” on the issue of remaining unmarried, Paul himself says that he had “no command of the Lord.” So, literally speaking, from this text, one cannot even say that Jesus ever called anyone to celibacy except the aggrieved party in a marriage. This includes permanent celibacy in the form it is taught today which applies equally to religious, diocesan priests in the Latin Rite and homosexuals.
Having noted these points, however, I do agree with Sandra Schneiders in her writings elsewhere (especially The Revelatory Text) that we can take such texts as those above and give them a wider interpretation (“meaning as appropriation”) that justifies a way of life “calling” some to “evangelical” poverty and to be permanent celibates in the church. Furthermore, when it comes to obedience, which we give to humans believed to be acting in the name of God, there is no place in the scriptures where the adult Jesus obeyed any such way; indeed those acting in the name of God killed him for being prophetically obedient to his only Higher Authority: the Gospel of the Kingdom/Kindom of God which he proclaimed and for which he was willing to lay down his life even though, humanly speaking, he wanted that “cup” to be taken away.
The Basis for Ministerial Religious Life in Christian Tradition
In my lectures and writing on Religious Life and its future (limited to its expression in economically “developed” nations like the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan), I think it is imperative that we make distinctions as well. This is critical if we are to offer a viable and meaningful way of communally-oriented celibate life in the future.
Starting with the idea of “ministerial” discipleship, as Sandra Schneiders notes, all disciples are called to ministry. This has been reiterated at the Second Vatican Council as well as subsequent teachings from the official church, as late as Pope Benedict XVI’s May 26, 2009 speech to the Church of Rome about the need for a “change in mentality” vis-à-vis the need for all the baptized to witness, alongside the hierarchy, to evangelization and evangelical mission. Unfortunately, as he noted in that speech, “there is still a tendency to unilaterally identify the Church with the hierarchy, forgetting the common responsibility, the common mission.”
The “tendency to unilaterally identify the Church with the hierarchy” has its application in the nations noted above with the interpretation of some that ministerial Religious life is not to be an unique form of ministry in the church that stands in contrast to the dominant model of church that increasingly is equated with the hierarchical church. Indeed, a core argument of Cardinal Rodé in his Springhill College talk seems to be that such actually defines what it means to be Catholic, much less religious. The purposed of Religious Life in his “model” ultimately seems legitimate to the degree it reinforces the interpretation of “church” that is hierarchical. This is in contrast to a way of organizing a church (or religious life) that is biblically balanced (following that proffered in Matthew 16 and 18 vis-à-vis the power to bind and loose given to Peter and the people or the need to have a Johannine model of the Community of the Beloved Disciple in a church increasingly defined by the Petrine/Apostolic “model”).
As the recent CARA study showed, ministerial Religious life is growing in this nation in those communities that fit the former, hierarchically-oriented model of church. It is not that case among the groups that have a more balanced ecclesiology promoted by Sandra Schneiders, and especially among those who accept the movement of religious life from being more ministerially-oriented to being prophetically challenging the abuse of power by elements stressing the hierarchical model of the church.
In my mind the future of religious life in nations like ours will find fewer and fewer adherents except for those who identify with a more hierarchically-defined church. I also believe a key reason for this is more psychological than theological, more because one’s personality type than any specific “call.” Having said this, I would like to share my rationale as to why, in economically developed countries like ours and the others noted above, we will have less and less people committing themselves to the traditional vows in a community form.
1. First we need to address demographics. Recently, when a new bishop was named to a diocese, at his opening press conference, he called on Catholics to have more children. He argued that “vocations” to the priesthood come from large families. At that time I facetiously responded by saying, “what if those families have only girls; will they count?” However, his original insight is true. Vocations to the priesthood and religious life in their “hay day” in countries like ours came (and still come) from larger families. The future, on this count alone, does not bear well.
2. In the peak days of religious life (i.e., during my early years in it), celibacy was not severely challenged by the secular “world” in its culture. There still were severe restrictions on what could be seen on television and pornography was not readily available. Now parents have to put blockers on their television sets to keep wondering children from finding it—and easily becoming addicted to it. The consequence: celibacy is not valued in the wider culture. In the church, too many reports of its abuse by priests and religious undermine its “witness” value. Indeed, in many cases, it has become suspect as a front for other unresolved personal issues.
3. Religious at all levels, in the main, have failed to witness to the kind of poverty outlined by Pope Paul VI in his important Evangelii Testificatio (which I still consider the best papal outline of the importance of our way of life). In it he noted that the reality of global poverty must be the lens from which we interpret our evangelical way of poverty. From this perspective our poverty is only a means by which we minister to alleviate the poverty of others by our promotion of justice. This “demands,” he said, no compromise whatsoever with any form of social injustice as well as the need to awaken consciences to the drama of misery actually experienced by people who are poor. In my mind, few if any religious institutes have embraced this papal teaching. Some have members doing so, but this demand for social justice envisioned by Paul VI is still a long way off. Indeed, while some ministerial religious seem to limit “poverty” to wearing simple habits or sleeping on floors or having no television and/or to limit their ministry only to those who are poor, Paul VI’s vision is much more like that transformative justice envisioned in Matthew’s Chapter 25:41-46.
4. If there is one area of the vows that is needed to be counter-cultural today by religious, it is obedience. If we consider the issue of the individual/community dynamic, I find the biggest challenge to create the kind of lifestyle that will honor both dimensions of a healthy religious life. Having studied Robert Bellah’s Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life while I was getting my PhD in Berkeley, his thesis still holds for me as I consider the future of religious life and some of the obstacles facing us.
There are basically four forms of obedience that are being played out today in religious communities:
a. The individual is subsumed by the community. This is the kind of life that I entered and which seems promoted by many of the new forms of religious life today that are more hierarchically oriented (“magisterially defined”).
b. The community exists to support the needs/desires of the individuals. In effect leadership is followership. This finds communities giving up corporate ministries in a way that isn’t effectively replaced by a common mission that finds the members able to be held accountable. Meanwhile the individuals find their “community” outside the traditional religious congregation.
c. The individual needs and the community’s needs are honored in a way that results in a kind of “negotiated” placement in ministry. This entails a model of mutually that assumes the needs of both are legitimate.
d. I have yet to see “obedience” following the “natural” model of community we are discovering from science: the kind wherein the whole is note greater than, less than or equal to the sum of its parts. Rather the whole is contained in each and every part. In other words, the community of the whole is found in the dreams and life-force of each member. How this works out in the future will be fascinating indeed.
Conclusion
As I consider the basis and direction for “ministerial” religious life, it is clear we are at a crossroads. While some clearly want a “turning back” and others are still arguing for its validity on faulty scriptural grounds, I firmly believe in the future of religious life in economically “developed” nations like ours. However, as recent documents coming from Rome and the religious communities themselves attest (and which I detail in my Can Religious Life Be Prophetic?), it must not try to base itself on false biblical assumptions, but evidence a prophetically-obedient, justice-based, celibacy-demanding model in a church and world where people are perishing precisely for want of such prophecy. While such a kind of “ministerial Religious life” may not strictly be a “call” from God (as Paul noted in First Corinthians) it certainly is the call of the day.
Michael Crosby is a Capuchin Franciscan. He lives in community with other friars in a downtown Milwaukee parish. He is the author of seventeen books.
'however any appeal to a
'however any appeal to a scriptural basis for it is shaky at best'
A perfect comment on the Apostolic Succession shared by the Pope, Cardinal Rode and the (male) Vatican Inquisitors (not to mention all Catholic clergy!).
I found this interesting
I found this interesting since we heard Fr. Michel Crosby
Yeah. comment. while these
Yeah. comment. while these two religious thinkers are involved in intra-mural sparring on the ephemeral, the great unwashed Catholic public, meanwhile, is being daily assaulted by more revelations of the never ending saga of the global clerical sex scandal. The hierarchy, (seeming to include popes) has been backing and filling while side stepping the problem for years. Their cover-ups top similar antics of that circus of clowns in Washington. Wonder not for an instance why the faithful (?) the 'phew' from the pews; and the 'constituents' for the aforementioned clowns are in despair of such leadership in Rome and Washington. Looking for the 'faithful' to mount a religioua 'tea party!
The Divine Feminine &
The Divine Feminine & Original Sin Revisited: Nature is First Scripture, let's not forget!
Worldview colors belief; the worldview belief of creationism is Earth-centered and static; the worldview of evolution is acentric and transformational. The Original Sin Story in the Bible assumes and promotes the God of dominion and Earth-centered belief. Because static-centrism makes no sense to modern science, the Earth-centric dream story of first sin has no credence. Dreams are experienced memories (images) that float up from the deep subconscious and are active in self-reflective consciousness; dreams are communication exchanges of “soul seeking consciousness.”
Evolutionary science reveals a world expanding “from within,” without a center or out-ward limit. Life as we experience it is intra-cellularly expansive “from within,” that is, one cell transforms to become two cells, and, on and on. As the cosmos expands it also accelerates, so does consciousness as it evolves. Consider the accelerated power of computer chips today compared to just five years ago.
Soul is “noosphere” (Earth atmosphere) in process of consciousness (spiritual energy) expanding from within (dreaming), encompassing the planet and inspiring every living cell. In his book “The DREAM of the EARTH”, Thomas Berry expands on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s “noosphere.” Better informed science requires out-of-date Earth-centric belief to be revisited and revised from the expansion-from-within perspective. To be credible now, Original Sin needs to be examined from the Evolutionary Worldview perspective. [Vatican II, Const. IV, Gaudium et spes, Intro, #5] “The human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one. In consequence, there has arisen a new series of problems, a series as important as can be, calling for new efforts of analysis and synthesis." Joseph Gremillion, The Gospel of Peace & Justice, ©1976, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY, fifth printing, March 1980, Pg 247
With respect to female/ male correlation, new life begins when two cells come together, the female ovum and male sperm. Scripture has God affirming the goodness of creation and the female/ male likeness in God. As individuals we glory in our personal oneness and tend to overlook the equal and essential portion of the “twoness other” in composite nature. Culturally males have suppressed (and ignore) the female otherness of their own personae.
Fixation (narcissism) in personal oneness suppresses twoness sensitivity and stands single-selfness against other-selfness. In hyping the singularity of individual selfness we males eclipse and violate our twoness, our essential female otherness. This hyped glorying in personal oneness is the ORIGINAL SIN OF PRIDE. Institutionalized male self-glorification is the original and continuing sin of pride; before the fall, pride.
The sin of clericalism is intentional, institutionalized male self-glorification and the suppression of equivalent female otherness. Male-instituted overreach of femaleness, in her person and in nature, is the sin of exploitation, otherwise called PROSTITUTION. Except respect for the personal other is cultured equivalently, continued disrespect for the natural other will continue. Respect for nature supposes respect for femaleness. What is radically sinful about clerical culture is that it not only self-arrogates dominion and exploits women and nature, but also, and not less significantly, it blasphemes the divine Selfness of female-other in the Divine Personae.
But what do I know, I'm not a professional.
http://justifiedliving.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977...
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978145964
Good points all. Abba in
Good points all. Abba in Aramaic is not transliterated well as Father, but rather Dearest One, for someone whom one intimately loves and is close with, i.e. mother, father, daughter, son, husband, wife etc. and is not used gender specifically. When it comes to theological work and expansion of human consciousness in relation to the Trinity and humanity, refer to Fr. Bernard Lonergan's various works...
I like you Father Crosby and
I like you Father Crosby and I trust you; so I shall read this over and over until I understand ...and yes, aren't we longing to live with prophetically-obedient models!!
A small correction:
A small correction: Springhill College is Stonehill College, Eastern, MA where Cardinal Rode spoke.
E.V.Shaw,OP
Michael Crosby writes: "I am
Michael Crosby writes: "I am one of those who cannot conclude that, in that male-only world, that there exists any formal call to a specific discipleship in any of the gospels that includes women." Crosby has emphasized the critical and careful reading of text--a fair point. So, strictly speaking, the "male-only" world he imagines for the cultural context of the New Testament texts is not supported by the evidence of the text, which cites to the existence and participation of many women. Indeed, whether that society was "male-dominated" or "patriarchal" can be argued based on the text, and other evidence we may have, but it is clearly not a "male-only" world. We should have some health skepticism about our ability to reconstruct such social contexts; just as Crosby argues that we should not use proof texts for scriptural arguments, we ought to recall that whether a particular society (and an ancient one at that) is patriarchal or matriarchal is often influenced by the observer. The question of female power, even in a supposedly male-dominated society bears study on its own merit, and ought to have some influence on the interpretation of text.
The problem is that even the
The problem is that even the best scholarship is not able to come to definite conclusions concerning the life and discipleship in scriptural times. They are not historical documents and we can only extract hints from them. Perhaps some of the apocryphal gospels, the earlier ones, should be considered to bring some light on these questions.
Another problem is that the faithful tend to read into the scriptures what they want them to say. This is especially true when the scripture quotes are used to "proove" a point of contention.
Why would Easter People bog
Why would Easter People bog themelves down with values, norms, and mores about the role of women that belong to an ancient and oppressive worldview not unlike that of the Taliban? Why? I'll tell you why. They wouldn't!
The will to control and dominate is a righteous masquerade. Behind the mask are greedy people who do not believe in Christ.
Jesus said His father's house was not of this world it TRANSCENDED this world. It transcended powers and principalities. It transcended values, norms, and mores that coalesce to create rules that form exclusionary structures.
Jesus wanted the world we live in to immanently (here and now) trancend oppression, subjugation, and prejudice. That's why He said my Fathers house is not of this world. That' why He said it was here and not yet. Everything Jesus did He did with the intent NOT to get bogged down but rather to BREAK LOOSE and RESSURRECT from the structures of death both metaphorical and real.
Sexism, racism, classism, and ageism etc are metaphorical structures of death because they exclude. They cut people off. Some say our religion is countercultural but it is absolutely not.
There is nothing countercultural about the entrenched and ancient prejudice against women that many cling to. Jesus confronted the bigots of His day by spiritually empowering the marginalized: Tax collectors, adulterers, women, lepers, unclean, posessed, etc. His actions lead the way. In that Light we are to embrace and include not shun and exclude. That is why the New Law was Love. It broke loose and ressurected from the tomb of the old law.
No no no the church does not have a leg to stand on if it tries to say women are not called by God to the priesthood. In Christ there is no male or female.
This is an argument we, the
This is an argument we, the women, like, and it's a good one. I am always suspect of anonymous, however. If you don't want to be confronted you are not really sure of what you are arguing. I hear and read this about our calling over and over but the thinking is always the very same thing, nothing you can actually attach your banner to.
Mary O' There is one thing I
Mary O'
There is one thing I am sure of and that is you are entitled to your suspicions. I am entitled to my opinion that anonymity neither adds to nor takes away from the value of a word. As regards to confrontation: "been there" "experienced that." Many conservatives in the church from where I am from visciously confront catholics with all manner of threats who do not espouse their narrow view of the road to heaven. However, if you like you can call me the everyday nameless person you meet on the street, next to you in church, in a rolls royce or a soup kitchen etc. etc. ad infinitum ...
Absolutely right on! The
Absolutely right on! The revelation of the divine is in "primary scripture." ever renewing, every rewriting its lessons. Natural law is script in every heart and the law calls for intentional symbiosis, by way of mutuality, complementarity and subsidiarity — Trimorphic Resonance.
Natural Law is alive and well, it's for us to seek it out and make our way, our truth, our light. By living natural law Jesus lived and revealed how to live with love for one another, for all other.
http://www.evolution101.org/Cosmic%20Religion's%20First%20Lessons.pdf
Bruce Malina and The Context
Bruce Malina and The Context Group address these issues handily; they reconstruct the social context well enough to show that the "question of female power" is a question posed by & in modernity. There is no corresponding question in ancient, Mediterranean, peasant society.
The "question of female power" needs to be asked, addressed and answered, but the whole enterprise is disjunctive with Jewish & Christian antiquity. Any "discipleship of equals" discerned in Jesus' time is a modern & relatively recent anachronism & retrojection. This anachronism says a lot about us and nothing about Jesus or His followers.
Mark Andrews There is no such
Mark Andrews
There is no such thing as a "question of female power". It exists and has always existed because it is human power. Women have been historically and unjustly exploited, subjugated, and oppressed by time bound ie limited cultural rules and regulations. Jesus is the long overdue eternal "answer to the culture of patriarchal oppression and sexism." Jesus said the new standard to measure everything we do is Love. Jesus' law of Love rejects the injustice of powers and principalities. Jesus was a just man.
Mark, the message of Christ is, ab initio, completely disjunctive with any and all Jewish and Christian antiquity that claims Jesus went along with the cultural subjugation of women in His day. He did not. In fact, Jesus was so disjunctive with the Jewish culture of His day He was put to death.
Jesus often broke laws. He pulled corn on the Sabaath. He threw out the money changers at the temple that were the custom of the day. He touched the leper. He touched the woman with a hemorhage. Like it or not Mary Magdala was His Apostle who was the privileged witness to the the Risen Christ. Oh yeah, Jesus even broke natural law when He raised Lazarus. He broke the shackles of any and every kind of death by Rising To New Life. We also are called to rise to the challenge Mark. We are called to rise to the new bar Jesus the Just Man The Man of All Time (not just ancient Jewish antiquity time) set for us.
Games have been played Mark. The timeless message of Christ was coopted, covered up,sanitized, relativized, retrojected, institutionalized, ommitted remitted,interpolated, translated, transmuted, Hellenized, Romanized and yes anachronized overtime. In other words it took on the trappings of culture so that it would no longer be an egalitarian threat to those with vested interests in the status quo. Yey Christendom in many ways became a maintainor and legitimator of the status quo.
The eternal message of Christ IS an anachronism by the very fact it IS timeless. It comes from the Kingdom of Kairos! So, on balance, those Modern retrojecionists are on the mark Mark. Finally!
Modern exegesis and historico-critical analysis of Scripture reveals the Truth and that Truth, like it or not, will set us free of those who would dare to use Jesus to keep anyone, anyone at all, down, out, powerless, and unequal!
The First Women Religious:
The First Women Religious:
Mary, the mother of Jesus, was the first and greatest disciple of Jesus, long before the Apostles even knew she existed, but God did.
Mary Magdalene, the faithful follower of Jesus, who remained at the scene of the crucifixion when other disciples had left, and later at the tomb when she was told that Jesus had risen from the dead.
Observe the Second Commandment of Jesus,
Matthew, 22: 34-40. Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself.
As a young woman in the mid
As a young woman in the mid nineteen fifties I was sure I was going to enter a convent. However when I had finished my university degree and teaching diploma I came to the conclusion that if I did embrace religious life I would be running away from the world rather than truly running towards God. I realised I was still very immature – far too immature to take on such a vocation. I sensed that I would remain an eternal adolescent if I became a nun. I realised too that I still wanted to dedicate my life to God but that I did not have to enter a religious order to do this – that in fact we are all called to make such a radical and life changing decision.
It was some years later that I had an experience of God's love and presence and realised that if I had had no other commitments I would certainly at that time have left everything and given myself to God in religious life.
I have doubts though about the call to absolute obedience. I think if one truly prays as did Jesus “Not my will be done but thine ...“ you will find it possible to discern where your ideal path leads and it is quite possible that others may not understand what you are trying to say. I could never put absolute trust in any other human being. To God alone can I pledge absolute obedience.
Michael I believe that how we
Michael
I believe that how we choose to live our lives reflects how we respond to a 'call' from God, whether we are Jew, Christine, Islamic, Hindu or agnostic etc. It is enough for me to accept that people of the Old Testament were formed in a patriarchel society. Jesus's coming marked, amongst other things, the beginning of people accepting that there needed to be a change to accepting women as equal to men in everything possible. That the New Testament does not make that clear enough (for some men) after centuries of discernment about the cultural context in which the texts were written is understandable. Think about this: If we hypothetically turn back the clock to the time the New Testament was written and instead of having men write the text, we give the job to women who have a mindset and a freedom to express their views as do women of the West today, what would the Bible, the Church and indeed western society look like today. Women and men who accept themselves as equal in all things possible are, I would contend, are the less threatened by either woman or man and certainly the happiest, and have no problem challenging 'authority' in any context.
Cheers
David Mapstone
Australia
HI THERE I WANT TO THANK
HI THERE I WANT TO THANK FATHER MICHAEL FOR IS ARTCLE ON RELIGIOUS LIFE I HAVE NEVER HEARD SUCH AGREAT ARTICLE IT REALLY EXPLAINED THE RELIGIOUS LIFE AS IT REALLY IS SO KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK AND I AM GOING TGO CHECK ON ALL YOUR BOOKS TAKE CARE PRAISE GOD
- Goodness Michael, I almost
- Goodness Michael, I almost don't know where to begin. Basis for ministerial religious life? Because some people feel a "calling" and want to assist others with whatever they commonly believe in. Celibacy? For goodness sake, why? Women priests (dare anyone bring that up again), why not? The rest of your argument is counting angels on the head of a pin.
- Ministry in "developed" nations in the future? They sure better be married, or at least, not celibate. We certainly can't use the excuse of a possible scandal can we? That's a done deal. Your comrades have destroyed the image of the church for a generation.
- Michael, I'm sure you are a nice man. Smart, learned --- that's you. I haven't read your books. I suspect I might get lost in the logic... never was that good at statistics nor logic. Don't even care how many angels are on the head of a pin nor whether Peter decided to hang on to his wife or whether Paul was a misogynist pig.
- I do know this, anyone who doesn't recognize that the big families are poor and probably immigrants is blind. Anyone who doesn't realize the church's future is with Latin America and Africa is blind. Average American folks could care less about celibacy or callings.
- You are an extremely educated man who doesn't realize your church is the church of the uneducated or poor (for the most part).
- I've traveled the globe on volunteer "missions" (pay our own way, thank you --- don't even check up on nuns). I've seen great young, married Maryknoll folks making a difference. I've seen young single men and women doing "their" God's work.
- A calling? Basis for ministerial religious life? First Corinthians? Michael, who cares? There are a lot of young people "ministering" your faith in jungles and in the mountains ---- and they honestly don't give a damn about the gigantic beaurocracy of your church nor of the scripture nor of that old pathetic white man that is your leader. They are busy clothing the naked and visiting the sick and educating the poor. The priests? Hell, I've talked to them. Half of them spend 15 years in a place and can't speak the language. They would be better off counting angels.
- Michael, I truly hate to be mean but you are on the wrong side of the future of your church.
" ... Let me keep my
" ...
Let me keep my distance, always, from those
who think they have all the answers.
Let me keep company always with those who say
'Look!' and laugh in astonishment,
and bow their heads."
Mysteries, Yes
Mary Oliver
Thank you, friar, for
Thank you, friar, for listening to Sr. Sandra Schneiders, for thinking about what you learned from her at the Graduate Theological Union, and for sharing the notions and reservations occassioned by your keynote on "Discipleship and Religious Life".
'Starting with the idea of “ministerial” discipleship, as Sandra Schneiders notes, all disciples are called to ministry. This has been reiterated at the Second Vatican Council as well as subsequent teachings from the official church, as late as Pope Benedict XVI’s May 26, 2009 speech to the Church of Rome about the need for a “change in mentality” vis-à-vis the need for all the baptized to witness, alongside the hierarchy, to evangelization and evangelical mission. Unfortunately, as he noted in that speech, “there is still a tendency to unilaterally identify the Church with the hierarchy, forgetting the common responsibility, the common mission.”'
The hierarchy is also called to admit the equality of the laity, to acknowledge and recognize the common mission of all Christians by inviting them to take on as much responsibility as the grace of baptism makes them capable of accepting.
Thank you for the challenging conclusion: We must
"evidence a prophetically-obedient, justice-based, celibacy-demanding model in a church and world where people are perishing precisely for want of such prophecy. While such a kind of “ministerial Religious life” may not strictly be a “call” from God (as Paul noted in First Corinthians) it certainly is the call of the day."
Francis of Assisi prayed, "I have done my duty. May Christ teach you yours."
Paz y Bien, Rolando, SFO.
Dear Michael, I was
Dear Michael, I was disappointed to read your comments. As a biblical scholar you and I know that there are times when we write with a scholarly audience in mind, where we cross ‘t’s and dot ‘i’s, where academic argumentation is a requirement. Other times we draw on our biblical and theological expertise to write in a more pastoral vein for a non specialized readership. At these times we paint with broad brush strokes. The articles Sandra has been writing are not exegetical or academic essays even though they have been drawn from decades of exegetical work and theological reflection which have been published in greater detail elsewhere e.g. New Wineskins, Selling All, Finding the Treasure. The nature of NCR is that it is for an intelligent readership but it is not an academic journal. As such your statement that “a clear case can be made for Jesus himself having his own house, based in Capernaum. The Greek makes Capernaum his “house-town” (Mt. 4:13)” - can be made without footnotes or dictionary definitions to provide text based evidence. This is the nature of this publication. In other words the context and literary form has to be taken into account. It seems to me you have overlooked this basic interpretive principle in your criticism of Sandra.
Sandra makes no claim that Religious life can be traced directly to Jesus but rather it is “ a particular kind of discipleship” and she looks to various forms of discipleship in the New Testament to provide a ‘model’ – not a blueprint or constitution but a model. She then provides a broad description of aspects of discipleship which the Gospels support – although each evangelist does this through his own lens and with his own emphasis as you note. I do not read this as proof-texting when this article is written not in the style of an exegetical argument but with a pastoral intent. Given Sandra’s writing on biblical interpretation and her critique of ‘proof-texting’ as a legitimate methodology, your aligning Sandra’s work with ‘proof-texting’ does not do justice to her professional integrity and expertise or the pastoral intent in these articles.
If I have read you correctly your main argument is that Sandra has used the word ‘call’ to discipleship to describe a number of Jesus’ followers: “All Jesus’ disciples are called to participate in one way or another in his mission of the transformation of humanity” and later, “But there was one rather small group of women and men (see Lk. 8:1-3) whom Jesus called to abandon everything.” As you rightly point out, there is no scene in any Gospel where Jesus ‘calls’ women explicitly to discipleship. In fact, there are very few ‘call’ scenes in any Gospel where there is an explicit invitation by Jesus to a person to ‘follow me’. If we listed these ‘call’ scenes we would come up with a total of just 12 disciples (Simon and Andrew, James and John: Levi, Mark 1:16-19; 2:14; and others called and listed in Mark 3:13-19). But the testimony of the Gospels is that there were more than these who followed Jesus, including women (Mark 15:40-41), and according to Luke seventy, who traveled with him and were sent out on mission (Luke 10:1). Mark does not describe the call of Philip in detail but it is presumed when he lists Philip among the twelve. This ‘call’ is narrated in John along with Philip’s invitation to Nathanael (John 1:35-51). The Gospels describe a large number of followers but provide details of a small number of explicit ‘call’ scenes. We usually understand these explicit ‘call’ scenes as typical of the broader phenomenon of discipleship, however these men and women became part of the Jesus group – direct and personal invitation or indirect attraction. Discipleship then continues within the early Christian community with Luke describing the number of disciples increasing (Acts 6:1) and naming Ananias and Tabitha as disciples (Acts 9:10; 36). In other words, discipleship is not limited to those relatively few men whose following of Jesus is narrated and described as a personal ‘call’. The Gospels (and Sandra) presume there are other unnamed followers and unnarrated invitations.
This also raises the issue of how one is ‘called’ into religious life. Your final sentence states – “While such a kind of “ministerial Religious life” may not strictly be a “call” from God (as Paul noted in First Corinthians) it certainly is the call of the day.” It appears that you are understanding the word ‘call’ in a very narrow, dare I say literal, sense. I wonder how God’s call can be experienced except through ‘the call of the day’. To even speak of God’s ‘call’ we are using metaphorical language to describe the mysterious sense of response that is part of what attracts a person to this way of life. Other phenomena impinge on this – a concern for those in need, an urge for justice, a recognition of one’s gifts and opportunities, and an altruistic desire to help others… My belief in the incarnation and my personal experience, suggests that these stirrings in the heart may be of God, and may be the only way God’s call can be made known to us, fragile, complex, human beings.
Dr Mary Coloe
Associate Professor New Testament
Australian Catholic University.
Dear Professor Coloe: Thank
Dear Professor Coloe: Thank you for verbalizing what I was feeling and thinking when I read this Capuchin's commentary on Sandra Schneider's recent essays on religious life. I feel as though he is posturing in his writing especially since he admitted to being her student at one time. As you pointed out, after all these were essays written to a larger audience and not for a biblical journal which specializes in scholarly research.
What bothers me is that the larger audience (males,esp.I am thinking of Rode, for one!!) will secretly cheer him on as he deems to bring all this up against Sister Schneiders. Perhaps he wants to be in the limelight as a boost to his male ego! Who knows??
But I thank you again for putting it into proper perspective for us!
He's got the same smile and
He's got the same smile and eyes as Sandra
Thank you Dr Mary Coloe for a
Thank you Dr Mary Coloe for a wonderful human response; if we are not Incarnational, then what are we about? And thank you Sandra, again!
Thank you Dr Mary Coloe for a
Thank you Dr Mary Coloe for a wonderful human response; if we are not Incarnational, then what are we about? And thank you Sandra, again!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes absolutely thank you Mary and Sandra!!
Crosby sounds confused and in
Crosby sounds confused and in error.
1. The religious are called , to be prophetic not always "obedient" to hierarchy rather obedient to God, Jesus and Holy Spirit. Their Prophesy is precisely NEEDED to correct and guide the hierarchy because the hierarchy can and DOES make horrific ERRORS.
2. Crosby is wrong about 'celibacy-demanding model" too. Jesus did not demand celibacy!
How mindless Crosby is of Scripture and the teachings and example of Jesus. Jesus made Woman of the City his Anointer, he is Messiah, Anointed one and she anoints him! He defends and honors this non-celibate.
Jesus defends and honors the non-celibate woman of the well of Samaria. Yes he tests her integrity and honesty. She never hides her identity, her sexual and family situation. Jesus praises and honors her as she is! Non-celibate. Junia is married, Joanna wife of Chuza who is accopanied by Andronicus!
I will return to this again when I have more time . I pray that Crosby reconsiders what he writes as he is in error. He sounds like a shill for the status quo of the current very rotten hierarchy, the Vatican which is unrepentant, still deceiving and covering up its lies and indecency which continues to greatly harm the Catholics and others of the world.
That the woman who anoints
That the woman who anoints Jesus in Lk 7 was in the city indicates nothing about her celibacy or lack thereof. "A woman who was in the city" (7.37) is not an ancient circumlocution for prostitute or anything sexual. A prostitute could have been called a "public woman" (dēmiē), but not "a woman who was in the city." Note, also, that she is not called a "woman *of* the city." The New American Bible and the New Revised Standard Version accurately represent the Greek here.
Further, a case should not be made about the identification of this woman as a "sinner." That the woman is called a "sinner" (hamartōlos) reveals nothing more about her celibacy status than does Peter's self-identification as a "sinner" (hamartōlos) in Lk 5.8.
How refreshing it is to have
How refreshing it is to have open and honest dialogue without rancor, anger, namecalling or threats. Thank you for being church as we (at least some of us) so desparately want yet only occasionally see.
Michael, To your open
Michael,
To your open perceptive and sincere writing on Religious life one can only say, "Amen".
I agree with the poverty
I agree with the poverty issue. I had a higher standard of living (better housing, vacations, food,travel and material goods)when a member of a religious community for ten years than I had before I entered and for 25 years after I left. Poverty was merely shared ownership, and what luxurious ownership it was.
Thank you, Mary Coloe, for
Thank you, Mary Coloe, for your very clear, respectful, and thorough response. As a member of a wonderful religious congregation of women, I can appreciate so much your understanding of "the call" we experienced in our hearts.
In addition, I would like to say that our communion is in our solidarity and commitment to each other and to God. It is not in what we do, but who we are in that unity of community.
I think Saints Priscilla and
I think Saints Priscilla and Junia and the other female Apostles and Benefactors would disagree. Indeed, if Benefactor was another term for overseer, it could be that the first bishop of Rome was, in fact, a woman.
Poor Michael Crosby! After
Poor Michael Crosby! After carefully reading and reflecting on his writing and "need" to comment on Sandra Schneiders five-part essay (which I had read), I come away with the sense that the "little boy" still cannot accept that a " girl bested him." He's still sticking his hand up in the air, "Sister! Sister! I know, Sister! Call on me, Sister! so I can let you see just how brilliant I am!
What happened, Michael, did Schneiders put you in your place too often during class? Me thinks, the man doth protest too much about being her student.
Or does he just want to sell some of his books?
There are none so blind as those who will not see, and Crosby refuses to see his own sexism.
Response to Fr. Michael
Response to Fr. Michael Crosby NCR Mar 30, 2010
Reading Fr. Crosby’s response to Sr. Sandra Schneider’s article on ‘ministerial religious life’ was one of those ‘grace-filled’ moments that we enjoy all too rarely. As a secular priest who has no vocation for celibacy, poverty, or obedience in the ‘religious order’ sense of those terms, whose ministry has been mostly teaching at a university, I read Sr. Sandra’s articles [devoured them, I guess] at the level of spiritual reading. She caused me to reflect upon my own ‘ministerial’ life as priest and professor. Is my life less ‘ministerial’, less ‘religious’ than the lives of my sisters and brothers in ‘religious orders’? I hope not. And now, Fr. Michael’s article in response to Sr. Sandra’s. What I find is a ministerial religious continuum along which we all find ourselves—and that our lives together form a messy kind of ‘community’ along Fr. Michael’s fourth model.
There is a tension between the universal call for all followers of Jesus to minister to others according to their needs, and the institutionalization and control of those ministries by a hierarchical, authoritarian, patriarchal sector of the church. At least since post-Constantinian times, the church seems to consist of at least two ‘types’ of Christians: ‘conventional’ Christians who uninterestedly and minimally do what they are required to do in order to maintain their ‘membership’; and ‘intentional’ Christians who see themselves as engaged in their ministries because they are religious. Francis of Assisi is a good example of the latter. As a layman, he did not seek official recognition by the institutional church but was persuaded to receive tonsure thereby coming under the jurisdiction of the church. This can be seen as the church using its power to dominate and control a religious movement that challenged the institutional church’s authority.
I agree with Fr. Michael’s criticism of the anachronistical ‘proof-text’ approach to justifying later developments. Whatever ‘leaving one’s possessions and not marrying’ may have meant among the early followers of Jesus, it is difficult to trace a direct connection between that and the development of the lives of the ’desert fathers [mothers?]’ and other forms of ascetic life, largely in the eastern church. Despite pre-Benedictine ‘religious’ examples [e.g., pre-Benedictine Farfa in Italy], the Benedictine model dominated the development of ‘religious’ life in the western church; and it was not focused on ministry to the world outside the monastery. Women’s religious orders followed the same model. Not until the thirteenth century do we find Francis and Dominic founding orders designed to ‘minister’ to the world outside the cloister. And women were not permitted to follow their brothers in that vocation: Franciscan and Dominican nuns were required to live the same cloistered lives as their Benedictine sisters. The establishment of women’s religious communities to serve ‘ministerial’ needs in the world outside the convent is a relatively new development [18th century?] and certainly one that finds inspiration in the women of the original community gathered around Jesus.
The desire [even need] that we have to ground all that we do in reference to the original ‘Jesus community’ is understandable. If we see the New Testament as being the Word of God, then we want it’s authority for what we do. But, like the early Christians who wrote the ‘New Testament’, perhaps we need to look to our experience of the living ‘Word of God’, Jesus himself, in our midst, for the inspiration of the ways in which we live out our Christian lives. As the ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating’, so the ‘proof of our Christian lives is in their living’.
Whether as ‘religious’ or just ‘intentional’ Christians, we are to live our faith daily, always seeking, being challenged, never absolutely certain about tomorrow’s Christian life, but certain that we walk ‘surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses’ and accompanied by the living ‘Word of God’, Jesus himself.
Whew! I have a Masters Degree
Whew! I have a Masters Degree in Mental Health, and 32 years of vowed religious life in an international community. Why can I not grasp the essence of what you are saying, Michael? I have read these paragraphs repeatedly, at different hours of the day.I must be wandering around in the 'wrong' discipleship crowd.
I am clear that you disagree with the biblical premise of Sr.Sandra Schneider. And you categorically explain why...but when you get to the CONCRETE proposals of REAL, daily living...you lose me.
"...it must not try to base itself on false biblical assumptions, but evidence a prophetically-obedient, justice-based, celibacy-demanding model in a church and world where people are perishing precisely for want of such prophecy." What does this mean, exactly? For those of us who are out here in the trenches, it sounds a bit harsh.
But continue the dialogue -- I know we must. Peace to you.
FIRST-CLASS theology from the
FIRST-CLASS theology from the pen of someone who has never had to walk in the sandals of SECOND-CLASS membership in the Roman Catholic Church.
Brilliante Craig Mckee! And
Brilliante Craig Mckee! And thank you.
My thoughts exactly.
My thoughts exactly.
I would love to know
I would love to know Michael's views on the spousal relationship that is part of the "theology of religious life" provided for women religious. Personally, I never really bought into the bride of Christ ideology though the Fathers and Doctors of the Church (men and the few women) go on at length. They link a "spiritual" reading of the scriptures to create a foundation for this spousal imagery. When the tough times comes, this ideal fell flat as a pancake.
What I have bought into, and what works for me, is the idea of discipleship. I have never felt the need to look literally at the scriptures for an explicit sourcing of ministerial discipleship as a woman.
One commentator asks: who cares?
To me, there is abundant Scriptural reason to follow Christ in poverty (enoughness; yeah Joan Chittister!), intelligent obedience, and chastity following the charism of my congregation. To live in imitation of Jesus Christ, together as the early Christian community and then as the communities of women developed, works well even after four decades. To live in charity, for others, is the epitome of life in Christ.
Just as all Catholic Christians follow the Scriptures, and live them out in the Tradition of the Church, women religious do so in specific, focused, communal ways.
I wish Church documents were less regulation-oriented, juridical and not so condescending regarding our life in community (e.g. Vita Consecrata)... and would stick to the essentials of discipleship. It seems to me these documents are written by twelve men and one woman (as a consultant.)
Thank you to Sandra and to Michael; we need the scholarship, always, so we stay focused on he essentials of following Christ and not get caught up in nunsense (sic).
At the end of the day, I see myself walking beside Jesus, or following him, or both. There's a lot the Scriptures don't say, and I can dwell in that space, content, dedicated, fulfilled with lots of promises to keep - beginning with the dawn tomorrow, a new day, itself filled with promise.
Interesting discussion, Mary
Interesting discussion, Mary Coloe and Rolando.
I am not a biblical scholar (what is proof-texting?), but, I recall what I was taught in Catholic school and learned in my later sporadic studying: Isn't it likely that the use of "the Twelve" in the gospels is a literary choice, selected to give the writing resonance with Judah-Israel's salvation history, selected because the gospel authors felt that writing poetically and full of allusion and connection was a higher priority than simply reporting news? In the Catholic tradition I was brought up in, Catholics are not at all fundamentalists. The meaning and value of scripture is not on the literal surface. Parsing the words of scripture carefully is not usually the direction in which to go to get Jesus's big themes. Just as scripture writers use "forty" for floods and desert fastings, etc., so too do they use "twelve." I don't think this means literally that Jesus had exactly twelve "apostles." The use of men exclusively for the Twelve might also be a literary device reflecting the norm of the times, rather like political cartoons exclusively use a man to represent, say, a congressperson, when the cartoonist needs to depict one.
Thank you Mountain Dweller!!
Thank you Mountain Dweller!! Though you say you are not a biblical scholar, it is clear you have understood what scripture is better than many with advanced theological degrees. You are so right, stop taking the scriptures so literally everyone! We are such a literal society these days that we are ignorant of the oral traditions/story-tellings of past historical times.
You demonstrate how important it is to look at scripture with fresh eyes looking for guidance and inspiration, not nit-picky scouring through the texts to prove this or that ideological stance.
Picky. Picky. Picky. Biology
Picky. Picky. Picky. Biology trumps one-up-man-ship. Female and male we are in God's likeness. Who has any right to divide what God has joined? I believe in non-divisive Christianity, beginning inside Christianity. Original sin is male pride, institutionaly sacralized by whom? Males. Let's wake up to nature, to evolutionary biology, psychology, religion, and address the burning issues of nature and culture, the moral issues of our time. Together. Of one mind.
Chastity? Celibacy? From
Chastity? Celibacy? From example of Jesus and his apostles and disciples? NO, Crosby! NO to chastity only, NO to celibates only !
Earth and Heaven and Scripture calling Crosby! St PETER was Married! Jesus healed his Monther-in-law. So much for the need for celibates only when St Peter was a Married man!
Earth and Scripture and Heaven calling Crosby! Junia wife of Chuza, also known (as Paul was formerly Jewish name of Saul) as Joanna, is Married! And St Paul calls Junia OUTSTANDING , FOREMOST among the Apostles.
So much for celibates only, so much for men only too... NO Crosby, you are wrong about both of your points. No about celibacy only, no about males only. Hey Jesus calls Samaria seminary student, Jesus is her teacher, a great teacher, calls her a great Apostle to Samaria, better than the men. John 4.
Do not be so stuck in anti-female bigotry that you fail to really follow what is in the bible. No to celibates only and no to men only. Let us have a church like Jesus had, with married and single, with men and women. Women doing all that men do and often praised and defended by Jesus as doing better than the men do in the roles and duties of the church, whether it is preaching, teachings, apostolizing, ministering to the public, anointing the Messiah, yes women and men.
There will probably always be
There will probably always be some who stick with the form of vowed religious life of the early twentieth century. However, that will not solve the problem of diminishing vocations to that life. Today's culture will spawn a new look or form of vowed religious life or none. Or our culture will give us in its place new ways for people to dedicate themselves to bring the peace and justice of the kingdom of God to earth as it is in heaven.
a great article.
a great article.
In classes taken to fulfill
In classes taken to fulfill the requirements for an M.A. in Theological Studies in 1988, I feebly tried to raise a few mild exceptions to Sr. Saundra Schneider's then published points of view. With none of your expertise to support my efforts, I was quickly shouted down. In that classroom it was not even permissable to suggest that her words could have unfortunatly negative consequences.
The intervening years provide evidence of those negative consequences. However, some of the posted responses to what you wrote reveal that there are still those for whom Sr. Schneider's perspectives are still something close to sacred.
Your effective challenge and rebuttal of Sr. Schneider's biblical arguments has been a long time awaited. Thank you, Fr. Crosby.
I wonder exactly how many of
I wonder exactly how many of these priests--- who are so totally convinced of a male dominated church--- are really totally clear on the effects of male hormones and female hormones. Iow, I am convinced that if women were as aggressive as men they would not suffer so much discrimination by the Vatican and the other male hierarchs throughout the church.
I am equally convinced that someday there will be woman priests and married priests. When the church needs or really wants something it always finds a way to get what it wants and manipulates the theology is suddenly corrected/changed. Iow, the church hierarchs always/suddenly "finds a way".
Further, if the church treated us males the way it treats women their would be one huge revolt, then Vatican would suddenly relent. The hierarchs get away with treating women as some kind of third class citizens and baby making machines because woemn are not as aggressiver or as vicious as us men.
I am convinced that women are far more in compliance with the teachings of Jesus Christ (peace, love, tolerance and "Do unto others...") than men will ever be, at least in the forseeable future, likely the next 200+yrs or more.
Also if we men really "leaned" on the church hierarchs we could get women held in higher regard.
Finally, if the church and all religions stopped objectifying and dehumanizing women as baby making machines ---certainly they are much more than that--- then all men will stop objectifying an dehumanizing women as sex objects.
I would never want to face judgment day/God, The Creator with the dehumanizing of women on my soul. When all religions fully accept women as equal childreen of God the Family of Man will take a quantum leap forward and a huge step closer to the "Second Coming" of Jesus Christ.
The Family 0f Man, God's creation, will also take a huge step forward when the church hierarchy REALLY, REALLY and TRULY follows the Laws of God(Ten Commandments) and the teachings of Jesus Christ(peace, love, tolerance, and"Do unto others...) If/since the Catholic church cannot get it right then why, exactly why would Jesus want to come. He cannot feel welcome when His church still cannot "get it right", His teachings!!!
Actually the teachings of Jesus and the laws of God are simple, or should be. But when Catholic theology is so twisted around, convoluted and involutional, something is very, very wrong!!! When one needs a PH. D. in theology to follow the church's teaching there is something very, very wrong.
That's my manifesto---
And that's my prayer---for women, and all of us.
The REAL question is not
The REAL question is not where religious life came from, but where it's going. Hopefully not to hell in a handbasket like the current DIOCESAN infrastructure.
When I tell people that God
When I tell people that God called me to ministry, a few people will say, "No, He didn't." I answer, "I was there. Were you?"
The fact that people judge my call from God amazes--flabergasts, astounds--me. God gave me the talents and the faith to serve. Why do other believe they have a right to put aside God's call?
As for only men being ministers in scripture--the disciples were all Jews from Galilee. Why aren't these standards accepted? Some were married, others weren't; some were fishermen, others not.
OK. So you took on Sr.
OK. So you took on Sr. Sandra Schneiders and lost. How's the priest-pedophile investigation going in your diocese? Any new cases surface?
What I find most interesting
What I find most interesting about this article is that the writer accuses Sr. Schneider of proof-texting while he then proceeds to proof-text. He accuses Sr. Schneider of reading the scriptures literally, while he proceeds to interpret the scriptures literally.
That to me spells, not a credible analysis.
Post new comment