The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionComplex questions of papal infallibility
Analysis comes after ouster of Australian Bishop William Morris
May. 23, 2011
Pope Benedict XVI is seated in the cathedra during the Liturgy of the Word during Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York April. 19, 2008. (CNS photo/Gary Hershorn, Reuters)
WASHINGTON -- “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident,” says Canon 749.3 of the church’s Code of Canon Law.
Jesuit Fr. Ladislas Orsy, professor of law at Georgetown University here, cited that canon almost immediately when NCR asked him if Pope John Paul II’s 1994 teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis “that the church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the church’s faithful” is infallible.
Orsy, a leading canonist well-known for his theological expertise, acknowledged, however, that the question of which church doctrines are taught infallibly is “extremely complex.”
Another leading Jesuit theologian, Fr. Francis Sullivan, said he thinks recent events have made it clear that the church is now presenting as infallible the teaching against women priests.
NCR raised the question after Bishop William Morris of Toowoomba, Australia, stated in a national radio interview that a letter from Pope Benedict XVI ordering his early retirement said that the late Pope John Paul II “decided infallibly and irrevocably that the church has not the right to ordain women to the priesthood.”
Benedict ordered Morris, 67 and bishop of Toowoomba for the past 18 years, to take early retirement following an investigation into a pastoral letter he wrote in December 2006 in which he expressed openness to ordaining women and married men, if the Vatican would allow it, in order to counter the priest shortage.
Sullivan -- a leading ecclesiologist who taught theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome for many years and is now professor emeritus of theology at Boston College -- also stressed the complexities of determining what church teachings are infallible.
In a telephone interview he said he did not regard Ordinatio Sacerdotalis itself as presenting an infallible papal teaching -- but he noted that a later document by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict) asserted that what John Paul affirmed in that apostolic letter represented infallible teaching -- not by the pope invoking his own authority, but as the constant teaching of the world’s bishops exercising their ordinary magisterium, or teaching authority.
Orsy and Sullivan both warned against oversimplified interpretations of whether the church’s doctrinal position against the ordination of women is infallible. (Full disclosure: Orsy, in the course of the interview, included NCR’s coverage of the Morris case among the media that he regarded as not taking full account of the complexity of the issue.)
NCR: February 17-March 1, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- Conscience Roundup
Hear what theologians, commentators, and our editors have to say about the contraception mandate
- Special Section: Religious Life
Work of missioners, past and future; African meetings; and more
- Tribute to a Peacemaker
New York's Pax Christi fetes Daniel Berrigan
“If it’s a disciplinary letter, the point is that he’s removed [from his office as bishop],” Orsy said. “Now if they give a reason, I do not know. I would not venture to say immediately, without looking at the document, what is the value of any assertion inside the document” regarding substantive doctrinal issues such as the status of the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
“One has to look at the original document and fit it into this very, very difficult issue of papal infallibility,” he added. “Ever since Vatican II, the interpretations are very, very complicated and difficult.”
“The pope can remove Morris even if it [the papal teaching on women’s ordination to the priesthood] is not infallible -- there’s no doubt about that,” he said.
He said he would “go along” with Sullivan’s reservations about the infallible status of the papal declaration in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
When NCR asked Sullivan whether he regards the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as manifestly infallible, he said, “No. I don’t think so.”
But he also said, “It’s infallibly taught -- at least the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has declared -- and I don’t want to contradict it.”
Fr. Charles E. Curran, a moral theologian at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, also cited the canon that nothing is to be regarded as infallible doctrine unless it is manifestly so.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that Ratzinger wants to say it’s infallible, and that he has said that” in his 1995 response, as then head of the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation, to a question of whether the teaching against ordaining women priests was infallible, Curran said.
The congregation said at that time that the teaching spelled out in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium.”
“My quick response to that is, it’s a non-infallible statement saying it’s infallible,” said Curran, who has written extensively on issues of church teaching and dissent from them.
Of the original papal statement, he said the idea that it was being presented as infallible teaching “certainly is not conspicuously present there, and if there’s any doubt, it’s not infallible” according to church law.
“Having said that, there’s no doubt that Ratzinger wants to call it infallible -- but he hasn’t crossed the line yet, to do it ‘in an infallible way,’ ” he said.
Sullivan said the doctrinal congregation declaration from 1995 “may account for what Pope Benedict said” in his reported letter to Morris.
Sullivan has long been a prominent critic of what some have called “creeping infallibility” in papal pronouncements, but he was very reserved about whether John Paul’s 1994 declaration on women’s ordination represents an infallible teaching, either from the pope himself or from the universal ordinary teaching of the world’s Catholic bishops.
Referring to the new profession of faith and oath of fidelity established in 1998 by the Vatican, Sullivan said, “After the Nicene Creed that we all say on Sundays, it’s followed by three paragraphs, and the first paragraph treats those matters that have been definitively taught as revealed truth, which must be responded to as a matter of faith. ... But the second paragraph, equally definitive teaching, presents teaching that is not revealed truth and therefore does not call for a response of faith -- even though one has to admit that the original edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church did, mistakenly, actually say that that kind of doctrine could also be defined as a doctrine of faith.”
When he called Vatican attention to that error, he said, the final official version of the catechism in Latin was corrected accordingly. Sullivan’s point was that definitive teaching may be regarded as infallible, even if it is not taught as divinely revealed truth requiring an assent of faith -- a rather narrow and technical distinction that would probably be lost on most Catholics.
Sullivan said the second paragraph of the new profession of faith and oath of fidelity “deals with doctrine that is not revealed but is so closely connected with revelation that the church needs to be able to speak definitively about it also, even though it’s not revealed truth.”
“Even if the church defines [such truths],” he said, “it does not call for a response of divine faith” but rather “a firm assent of the mind.” He said that is the kind of assent that Benedict seems to have had in mind in the reported letter to Morris.
“I haven’t seen the original papal text [to Morris],” Sullivan said, “and one never knows unless one has seen the original text, but if Pope Benedict did say that Pope John Paul II had taught this doctrine infallibly, I suggest -- I can’t be certain -- that Pope Benedict may be thinking of the fact, which is certain, that in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Pope John Paul II did call upon the faithful to give their definitive assent to the judgment which he was there proposing, namely that the church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood.”
[Jerry Filteau is NCR Washington correspondent.]
Editor's note: For NCR's editorial on papal infallibility and womens ordination, see: Ordination ban not infallibly taught
"8. With regard to the nature
"8. With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda)."
-CDF Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei.
Ordination of men only belongs to the doctrines de fide tenenda. Infallible and irrevocable. As simple as 2+2=4... Anyone who does not give this assent is rightly understood to have set "himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church." (Canon 750.2) and has opened himself up to a just penalty after having been warned (Canon 1371.1)
Nonsense. The trouble is the
Nonsense.
The trouble is the 1996 teaching Ordinatio Sacerdotalis does not itself meet criteria required to be consistently taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium.
Documents from the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium 25 d-e) make clear that five conditions must be fulfilled before the “universal ordinary magisterium” can be considered to have exercised INFALLIBLE teaching:
1. The bishops of the world must be involved in a collegial exercise of teaching authority.
2. The bishops must be free to express their own considered opinion.
3. The bishops must listen to the Word of God and the sensus fidelium.
4. The teaching must concern matters relating to the object of faith.
5. The bishops must want to impose the doctrine as definitely to be held.
The bishops of the world were not consulted about this teaching and many had been on record for a number of years, both as bishops conferences and as individuals with statements that the church should open the discussion of women's ordination. The 1996 teaching invoking infallibility is fraudulent, pure and simple.
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/long-simmering-tension-over-creeping-i...
"Nonsense." Now, now,
"Nonsense."
Now, now, Jim.....that's a priest ( a little mini-in persona christi) you are talking to...... :)
Cheers,
"Sapere aude"...dare to know
"Sapere aude"...dare to know and 'be wise' enough to know that I can save all much angst: there is NO INFALLIBILITY whatsoever, at all, in any circumstance. All is church obfuscation, kindly do not allow yourself to become lost in church word-speak. Control and mindless acquiescence to church authority is an infallible doctrine pertaining to church ends.
Amen, Amen! The infallibility
Amen, Amen! The infallibility of Pio Nono should be declared a no no. How thinking folk could engage in this chancel prancing bit of clericalism is an embarrassment to believing Catholics. In the words of Lord Acton, a prominent Catholic opponent of the doctrine: Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
No, now Javier, that little
No, now Javier, that little priest is "in persona episcopus". He's a delegate of the bishop and nothing more beyond that. I recommend you familiarize yourself with the ante-Nicene Greek Fathers who never accepted the concept of the presbyterate as "in persona Christi".
Javier, why be Catholic?
Javier, why be Catholic? Your sarcasm and disrespectful attitude towards a teacher, putting aside his priesthood for the time being, is bizare and would be punishable in my classroom. (I am a middle school and high school teacher). I had plenty of kids who questioned me, but the kids with that sassy attitude would not get far in my classroom.
Are you happy as a Catholic?
That isn't what LG 25 says.
That isn't what LG 25 says.
"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held."
You very clearly have invented additional conditions not in the text. You have also ignored the requirement that a bishop be in communion with the College of Bishops and its head.
You're correct, Pastor John
You're correct, Pastor John N., in stating, "That isn't what LG 25 says."
Not literally, anyway.
But how to effectuate the intent of LG 25? Ah, there's the rub.
If you visit http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/mag_ord.asp, you will find the contribution of Roman Catholic theologian John Wijngaards, who holds a doctorate in theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University. This respected theologian clearly articulates the only way that LG 25 could be implemented with any degree of intellectual and ecclesiological integrity.
Check it out.
Makes educated and informed sense to me.
(unless, of course, you can offer a better way for fellow adults [one hopes], i.e., bishops, to exercise their teaching authority under the universal and ordinary magisterium)
You, Fr. John have very
You, Fr. John have very conveniently left out the fact that the bishop or Rome and his fellow bishops of the Roman Church must also be in communion with the rest of the Apostolic College to be found in the Orthodox and Oriental Churches. A condition that has not been present in 1600 years.
The entire architecture wherein ecclesial or papal infallibility could possibly be claimed and exercised since these ancient divisions has been a hoax.
That is not the
That is not the case.
Although the Orthodox bishops do have valid Apostolic Succession, their authority concerning the Church becomes non-existent as they are no longer in full communion with Rome. It is the bishops who must be in communion with the Pope, not the other way around. Even Irenaeus said that it "is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome]" in his work entitled "Against Heresies". That seems pretty clear.
Fr. John N. made no mention
Fr. John N. made no mention of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. But since you bring it up…
Too many articles and commentaries falsely represent what Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is merely a document that states a teaching which has been long taught as infallible by the Church. It is in no way, shape or form an exercise of infallibility in itself. This is even stated by Fr. Francis Sullivan, S.J. in the above article. Debate the teaching presented by the document, not the document itself; it's a pointless debate of something that's a non-issue.
The term ordinary universal Magisterium means an exercise of the Church's teaching office where there is complete agreement, or fairly close to complete agreement, among the Catholic Bishops of the world that a particular doctrine is certainly true, but without a solemn definition. (Young)
Your twisted "five points" of items, although pulled out of context, are not conditions needed exist all at once but rather in combinations. Actually, #4 seems to be the only one that is specifically in Lumen Gentium 25. I'm assuming the other four you “intuited” by a personal interpretive reading.
Let's keep in mind some facts that are contained in Vatican II's Lumen Gentium 25 in these excerpts:
Bishops may "proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly" only when they are in full communion with the pope. Bishops without the pope but in union can only teach authoritatively and not infallibly.
This is all reaffirmed in Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the "Professio Fidei" by stating that anything taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium necessarily includes the Pope. But all this just deals with the non-issue of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
The male only priesthood falls under infallibility via being Definitively Proposed as a logical necessity (see Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the "Professio Fidei" by the CDC). Sacerdotalis Responsum Ad Dubium specifically states of the definitively proposed teaching of male only priesthood, “This teaching requires definitive assent.” Assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility.
The "firm and definitive assent" required is already long past, being …held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith. Therefore any dissent since can fall into danger of being heresy. …whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law. (Sacerdotalis Responsum Ad Dubium)
Doctrines can be Definitively Proposed by the Church ...even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed.
They can be defined by:
a) the Roman Pontiff speaking “ex cathedra”
b) the College of Bishops gathered in council
c) taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the
Church as “sententia definitive tenenda.” Such doctrines are joined to Divinely Revealed truths by a. historical relationship or b. logical connection. (Donovan's Summary of Categories of Belief in “Professio Fidei”)
The teaching of a male only priesthood would fall under c.
Thank you for stating clearly
Thank you for stating clearly what is defined and taught by the Church as the conditions for infallibility. Glad someone had it straight!
There is a little bit abuse
There is a little bit abuse of power in this discussion. Priests and bishops are not free to discuss this without being punished if anything they say does not toe the party line. Privately many raise questions on the ordination of women. The second point by Mr. McCrea is important. Some reports show bishops leaving Rome in 1870 to avoid opposing Pius IX on this issue so maybe the doctrine is defective.
Creeping infallibility will eventually lead to a position of absurdity. Expect a new Galileo situation at some point.
The history of the Papacy would make anyone shudder considering the abuses and crimes committed. Creeping infallibility is an abuse and shows the weakness of the Vatican's position which will not stand up to open discussion.
Creeping infallibility separates us further from the eastern Churches by adding doctrines that they do no have and have not consented.
Doctrines are not added. Over
Doctrines are not added. Over the centuries, heresies against long established teaching, Tradition, beliefs, etc. have forced them to be defined. It's too often assumed that a doctrine being defined is equated with it being new (i.e. the Assumption of Mary). The Eastern Churches rarely encountered these problems in the same way. Many of what separates East and West isn't the actual belief in something, but the West's structured definitions of a shared belief (i.e. the concept of purgation after death).
As to female ordination:
...the Orthodox Church has never faced this question, it is for us totally extrinsic, a casus irrealis for which we find no basis, no terms of reference in our Tradition, in the very experience of the Church, and for the discussion of which we are therefore simply not prepared...the ordination of women to priesthood is tantamount for us to a radical and irreparable mutilation of the entire faith, the rejection of the whole Scripture, and, needless to say, the end of all 'dialogues'." Later in his letter he explained: "This priesthood is Christ's, not ours...And if the bearer, the icon and the fulfiller of that unique priesthood, is man and not woman, it is because Christ is man and not woman. -- Dr. Alexander Schmemann, late Dean of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary
Mr. Brian Batty, O.P. on May.
Mr. Brian Batty, O.P. on May. 28, 2011.
You stated:
"Doctrines are not added. Over the centuries, heresies against long established teaching, Tradition, beliefs, etc. have forced them to be defined. It's too often assumed that a doctrine being defined is equated with it being new (i.e. the Assumption of Mary). The Eastern Churches rarely encountered these problems in the same way. Many of what separates East and West isn't the actual belief in something, but the West's structured definitions of a shared belief (i.e. the concept of purgation after death).
As to female ordination:
...the Orthodox Church has never faced this question, it is for us totally extrinsic, a casus irrealis for which we find no basis, no terms of reference in our Tradition, in the very experience of the Church, and for the discussion of which we are therefore simply not prepared...the ordination of women to priesthood is tantamount for us to a radical and irreparable mutilation of the entire faith, the rejection of the whole Scripture, and, needless to say, the end of all 'dialogues'." Later in his letter he explained: "This priesthood is Christ's, not ours...And if the bearer, the icon and the fulfiller of that unique priesthood, is man and not woman, it is because Christ is man and not woman. -- Dr. Alexander Schmemann, late Dean of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary"
----------------------------------------------
Perhaps that is why, in America and Canada, the Orthodox Church is populated with a dwindling number of elderly members.
The Church has always manipulated what teachings that it wanted to emphasize. If Christ is THE PRIEST---then there is no need for any others. That is what St. Paul taught in his Letter to the Hebrews---Christ and only Christ is the High Priest.
But if Christ wanted to be with his people for all times, in their midst, then---the gender of the presider is not important---only HIS actions and words are.
The truth is----the Church of the 21st Century is facing problems that it did not have to face before----an educated laity and instantaneous communication.
1) Educated laity (including women) refuse to accept the 'bunk' that is spewed out from the Vatican. They are scholars, too---and the fact is that Jesus ORDAINED NOBODY!
The Popes, Bishops can jump up and down (and the Orthodox Patriarchs as well), about this, but there was no ordination nor consecration ceremony at the Last Supper. Jesus changed bread and wine into his body and blood and said simply, "do this in memory of me." Men and WOMEN were present at the Last Supper. The very fact that the women at the foot of Christ's cross knew exactly where the Apostles (and other disciples) met after the Resurrrection, and that other disciple knew the meeting place as well (e.g. the two disciples on the way to Emmaus). There were many people at the Last Supper---not just the 12 Apostles---the disciples were there too, men and women.
2) The PRACTICE in the Early Church in Palestine, and the Mediterrian region during the Age of the Apostles and during the persecutions was that the Eucharist was celebrated at home or in hidden places (catacombs, caves, out in the desert), and that the PRESIDERS (Presbyteria) were very often women. Archiological discoveries and personal letters discovered, reports, and internet shared discoveries---are affirming that information more and more each year.
The Popes and the rest can deny, deny, deny all that they wish----but history and artifacts are proving them to be liars. Reality is God's greatest ally.
"Creeping infallibility will
"Creeping infallibility will eventually lead to a position of absurdity. Expect a new Galileo situation at some point."
=============================================
The “Wojtyla-Ratzinger imposition” is the Roman Catholic version of the Communist “Berlin Wall.” Both Berlin Walls were (are) for the same effect, to shore up authoritarian control and to frustrate legitimate political/ ecclesial self-expression of the people. The same “wall” within Islam is even now being challenged by the Islamic people. Illegitimate despotism delegitimizes the authenticity of humanity. The message to Rome from the AMERICAN CATHOLIC COUNCIL should be loud and clear, “Tear down that wall!”
You're exactly right. Liberal
You're exactly right. Liberal priests and bishops do not have the courage of their convictions. They're unwilling to face inconvenience for their religious beliefs, while in China orthodox priests and bishops face persecution for their loyalty to the Pope. Doesn't this tell you something about the truth of Liberal Catholicism? No one is willing to suffer anything for it.
There is a little bit abuse
There is a little bit abuse of power in this discussion. Priests and bishops are not free to discuss this without being punished if anything they say does not toe the party line. Privately many raise questions on the ordination of women. The second point by Mr. McCrea is important. Some reports show bishops leaving Rome in 1870 to avoid opposing Pius IX on this issue so maybe the doctrine is defective.
Creeping infallibility will eventually lead to a position of absurdity. Expect a new Galileo situation at some point.
The history of the Papacy would make anyone shudder considering the abuses and crimes committed. Creeping infallibility is an abuse and shows the weakness of the Vatican's position which will not stand up to open discussion.
Creeping infallibility separates us further from the eastern Churches by adding doctrines that they do no have and have not consented.
Nonsense! Wishful
Nonsense! Wishful thinking!
Obviously you've never studied theology, or if you have, it wasn't Roman Catholic. The pope doesn't need the opinion, approval or collegial anything to declare an infalliable doctrine of faith. A infalliable doctrine must be regarding faith and morals and done ex cathedra.
The bishop in collegial decision might declare something infalliable, but it ain't so until the pope also says it is.
Even Wikipedia states it correctly ...
"According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:
1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)
For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following:
a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.
Here's what Lumen Gentium
Here's what Lumen Gentium actually says: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held." According to Mr. McCrea nothing has ever been taught infallibly, except by Pope or Council, because these five conditions (made up by some liberal theologian?)have never been met for any teaching. Mr. McCrea is a little ultramontane for my tastes. I'm sure that the Bishops have taught something infallibly. Mr. McCrea has to go to Rome for his infallible teaching, and apparently believes nothing unless taught infallibly..
All this doctrinaire
All this doctrinaire supposition supposes the divine ordination of man as "primary" (superior and incorruptible) over woman, and woman as "secondary" (inferior and corruptible) to man, i.e., Eve fashioned from Adam's rib. If the first patriarchal presumption fails, so do presumptions derived from it.
Yes, and even more basic: Men
Yes, and even more basic: Men have nipples. Do you know why? In very early human development, nature presumes female gender for all fertilized eggs. Later, in the case of future males, the Y chromosome kicks in and male development begins. The Adam's rib thing doesn't jive with actual human development and prejudice about female inferiority doesn't make sense - either scientifically or morally. The original model for humans is FEMALE. The male is a secondary "model" - not inferior, just secondary developmentally. All God's children, both female and male,are equally valuable and should be treated as such. To do less is to ignore the Jesus' example of embracing women and men as God's beloved. Now, shall we talk about women's ordination?
A Cosmic Retrospective on
A Cosmic Retrospective on RELIGION 101
=======================================
Something is fundamentally wrong when religions bring war not peace; which raises the root question, “What is religion?” A universal retrospective on religious violence is obviously needed, for until now religions cause social unraveling, not bonding.
Religious searching is personal and universal. Religion isn’t some proprietary object of jealous claim. No one group or class of people has exclusive right or ownership of religion, of “truth;” religion is not a privileged revelation belonging more to one institution, to one ideology and not to others. Religion is about self-understanding and the total implication of self in Other.
Religion is a conscious virtue of self-reflective relationship in search of deeper understandings that serve personal and communal wellbeing. It is the ascendant, conscious virtue of Godlikeness straining for self-reflective fulfillment — what is the transformational self becoming consciously “intentional,” not merely “intensional.” The transformation of self into and from “other” is the fundamental consciousness of “Eucharist;” Eucharistic altruism is self-commitment to the mutuality of self/ other transformation.
Religion is the mindfulness and civil bonding, an inter-relational yearning for Godlike harmony that opts wholeness over pettiness and the identity of self in otherness. Religion is about universal values that bind in-common and uplift people above competitive tendencies in preference for common interests.
Evolution101, Biology101, and Religion101 are mutually inclusive of each other, and mutually instructive in each other. To get religion right, we must get biology right; to get biology right, we must get evolution right — we cannot rightly “know” one except we know the other. Evolution is tested communication; biology is conscious life; religion is committed social conscience.
Authentic relationship (religion) is implicated in the understanding that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” The phylum is remembered in the individual as cosmic energy/ substance is the substance/ energy of everything Earthly. As the apex accomplishment of evolution, every person is a recapitulation of all prior energy/ substance, functionally “remembered” in DNA coding.
In brief: EVOLUTION101 is the cosmic process of diversification and expansion from within implicated in Earth/ Cosmic “withinness;” BIOLOGY101 is conscious life expanding from within, aware of its capacity to enable or frustrate personal/ communal ascendancy; and RELIGION101 is acting in interests of common holism and mutuality, and altruistic commitment of the personal self to purposes of universal sustainability, mutuality and complementarity.
Together, evolution, biology and religion collectively and consciously represent communally the “trimorphic resonance” of civil/ religious community.
ummmm.... nope
ummmm.... nope
Jesus embraced the women,
Jesus embraced the women, good call. Yet, none of them were apostles. Not even Jesus' own mother. Jesus was a pioneer of women's rights at the time, if He wanted them to be priests, He would have done it. Case closed. We all need to get over ourselves. Good gracious its no wonder that many early Church Fathers say most people go to hell.
Not even Jesus' own mother.
Not even Jesus' own mother. Jesus was a pioneer of women's rights at the time, if He wanted them to be priests, He would have done it. Case closed. We all need to get over ourselves.
_______________________________________
We are over ourselves. What conservatives can't get over is the Truth and that is Jesus did not ordain anyone and that means men.
However, a woman Mary was chosen to be the first Priest ever.
Mary changed God into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Mary a woman is the first Priest!
Plese,anonymous, Jesus didn't
Plese,anonymous, Jesus didn't ordain anyone, male or female, a priest. Ordination came well after the time of Jesus. The apostles were not "priests" as we know priests today.In the early church, the presiders were people called from the community- no ordination is detailed in Scripture.
Jesus ordained Peter. This
Jesus ordained Peter. This is a fundamental scriptural understanding for Catholicism, and stems (obviously and innately) from the Bible.
Jesus ordained Peter Of
Jesus ordained Peter
Of course he did, and told him he was Pope and infallible also!!!!
And please don't try to tell me that Mary Magdalen, the first person to see the risen Christ and charged with bringing the news to the others, wasn't an apostle. She was, and none of the misoginystic tinkering with the scriptures over time will alter that fact. That Mary, mother of Jesus, was a priest is self evident, and, at the Last Supper, when Jesus told those assembled to 'do this in memory of me', he didn't specify that he was only speaking to the men.
Gezzamac is absolutly
Gezzamac is absolutly correct: The Truth is out. It is self evident that Mary IS the first Priest ordained of God. Those who try to put up barriers to women's ordination in the RCC are apostates.
And yes Mary Magdalene had all the credentials to be the first Pope perhaps more so than Peter because she never let fear cause her to deny Jesus as did Peter.
Don't forget the Book of
Don't forget the Book of Armaments, Chapter 2, verses 18-21:
"18 First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. 19 Five is right out. 20 Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, 21 who being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it."
AMEN.
PERFECT!!! Absolutely!!!
PERFECT!!! Absolutely!!!
Dear TrueDat, And do not
Dear TrueDat, And do not forget: " We all become fools with insatiable appetites for mularkey at all times because it is wise to be critical of the Vatican with no understanding of goodness."
Submitted by tom warren on
Submitted by tom warren on May. 26, 2011.
You stated:
"Dear TrueDat, And do not forget: " We all become fools with insatiable appetites for mularkey at all times because it is wise to be critical of the Vatican with no understanding of goodness."
-------------------------------------------------------
And the greatest spinner of mularkey is the Vatican. It has been doing it for several centuries now.
Ah, look at B16 and how he is
Ah, look at B16 and how he is dressed.
Must be presiding at one of those "clown masses" that the trads are always howling about!
The Holy Spirit does not
The Holy Spirit does not speak alone to the Catholic Hiaracrchy. She speaks to all who have ears to hear, and no man,woman, or organisation may deny her freedom.
I think an important thing to
I think an important thing to consider is, "When was the question really asked?" Go back to Galileo, among the first to ask whether the earth went around the sun. Since it had always been taught, did that make it infallible?
And so the question, "Can women be ordained to the priesthood?" is really being asked for the first time, in the middle of a modern context that makes the question relevant. As usual, the conservative Church is putting herself in the same intellectual and spiritual place as the pope who condemned Galileo. The same with the homosexual questions, also being asked within a modern context, and therefore, for the first time.
2 plus 2 = 4 only works in a
2 plus 2 = 4 only works in a numbers system based on ten, Father John. The numbers system that you are using to communicate on your computer is based on 2. Please read with care Hans Kung's book" Infallibility a Question." Simpleton answers by you or anyone else is causing harm to the Church.
May we have peace and some understanding?
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Fr. John - Read: (From U.S.
Fr. John - Read: (From U.S. Catholic, May 20, 2011 Article, entitled "Why Church Teaching on Women's Ordination Is not Infallible"
"Perhaps the best commentator on this subject is Joseph Ratzinger himself when he was prefect of the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith. “Where there is neither consensus on the part of the universal church nor clear testimony in the sources,” he wrote, “no binding decision is possible. If such a [infallible] decision were made, it would lack the necessary conditions and the question of the decision’s legitimacy would have to be examined.”
The Ordinatio Sacerdoatalis Responsum Ad Dubium,dated October 28, 1995, came after Ordinatio Sacerdotalis because of it containing too much room for confusion regarding; this second document was intended to make it clear that this was an infallible teaching. However, because this document did not come directly from the Pope himself but rather from Cardinal Ratzinger it is not an infallible statement. In order for it to have been, John Paul II would have had to sign the document himself, and to state clearly that the purpose of that document was to infallibly proclaim that women could not be ordained. John Paul II himself needed to make that proclamation - it cannot come through a third party - it must come directly from the Pope himself.
I guess you forgot that important point in your discertation, huh?
I suppose though, for you, the thought of women joining your ranks feels a little threatening to you. I'm not even talking priesthood here - I'm talking about the permanent diaconate. The Church has documents which clearly show that women had at one time received the diaconate stole and the laying on of hands by the bishop. And Pope Benedict has made it clear that the ministry of priest is distinct from that of deacon. A bishop confirmed to me that the same reservation of priestly ordination to males does not apply to the diaconate. There are absolutely no doctrinal, theological, or traditional reasons to deny women ordination to the permanent diaconate - but the Pope has not acted on that. Paul VI even said that door was open to further study.
You know why women have not been ordained as deacons yet? The reason is because of priests - like yourself - who became ordained - not to serve Christ and the Church - but to make themselves feel important and set apart from other people. I don't even know if you are a real priest - or if you call yourself "Fr. John" to make people listen to you on this discussion board. And quite frankly, I do not care who you are. Clericalism in the Church is not how Jesus envisioned His Church. Jesus did not seek to exclude others, but to gather them to Himself. Jesus did reach out to women - but He was still a Jew and He did live according to the norms in His day. But if Jesus walked the earth today, do you think for one minute that He would ban a woman from ministering in His name because of her gender - when today, this is in fact a social sin to not validate a person's gifts because of his/her gender?
A priest whom I studied under, who happens to be the best systematic theologian I have ever known, said that Pope Benedict will never issue an infalllible statement as Pope on the issue of women's ordination, because he is too astute a theologian to do that. There are too many Catholics across the globe who are awakening to the fact that women, in fact, are feeling called by Christ to serve the Church in the ministerial priesthood. I am not talking about the Roman Catholic Women Priest members, or others who have disobeyed Canon Law or the Magisterium. I am talking about faithful Catholics in good standing. You cannot dictate to the Holy Spirit how God wants to move the Church. That is up to God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My post references the
My post references the commentary on the revision of the Professio Fidei, not Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Cardinal Ratzinger affirms that the reservation of priesthood to men only is a second paragraph truth. It must be held firmly.
Furthermore, I invite you to acquaint yourself with the concept of "religious submission of intellect and will," which covers all other teachings, including that which comes out of the Holy Office/Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Finally:
"The subject of the precise status of the deaconess is confessedly obscure and confused, but two or three points at any rate seem worth insisting on. In the first place there were no doubt influences at work at one time or another which tended to exaggerate the position of these women-helpers. This tendency has found expression in certain documents which have come down to us and of which it is difficult to gauge the value. Still there is no more reason to attach importance to these pretensions than there is to regard seriously the spasmodic attempts of certain deacons to exceed their powers and to claim, for example, authority to consecrate. Both in the one and the other case the voice of the Church made itself heard in conciliar decrees and the abuse in the end was repressed without difficulty. Such restrictive measures seem to be found in the rather obscure 11th canon of Laodicea, and in the more explicit 19th canon of the Council of Nicaea, which last distinctly lays down that deaconesses are to be accounted as lay persons and that they receive no ordination properly so called (Hefele-LeClercq, Conciles, I, 618). In the West there seems always to have been considerable reluctance to accept the deaconesses, at any rate under that name, as a recognized institution of the Church. The Council of Nismes in 394 reproved in general the assumption of the levitical ministry by women, and other decrees, notably that of Orange in 411 (can. 26) forbid the ordaining of deaconesses altogether. It follows from what has been said that the Church as a whole repudiated the idea that women could in any proper sense be recipients of the Sacrament of Order. None the less in the East, and among the Syrians and Nestorians much more than among the Greeks (Hefele-LeClercq, Conciles, II, 448), the ecclesiastical status of deaconesses was greatly exaggerated." - Thurston, H. (1908). Deaconesses. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm
On the credibility of the
On the credibility of the "Catholic Encyclopedia" on newadvent.org : this text presents itself as an online version of the 1910 Catholic Encylopedia. If this were true it could be useful as a historical witness to official Church teaching a hundred years ago. In fact there were a number of alterations introduced into the online text to make it more rigid and judgmental of, for example, Reformed churches (a.k.a. "sects.") You can trace these by comparing the old book version to the online version. So this document has no credibility as an accurate historical source, and none at all as a contemporary source.
Ad hominem attack against New
Ad hominem attack against New Advent, rather than addressing the fact that ecumenical councils have taught on these matter. *slow clap*
Its truly amazing how nasty
Its truly amazing how nasty and un-Christian people allow themselves to become when they comment on these blogs. This blog is supposedly "Catholic," but its no better than the comments on YouTube or any other blog.
To comment that Father John didn't become a priest to serve Christ or the Church, but only to serve himself, is way over-the-top. I have to wonder if "anonymous" is even a Catholic. I hope not. Because if you are, you should leave. You are obviously too bitter and angry to remain in the Church.
I'm sure "anonymous" will make some sort of sharp, snippy comeback about how corrupt the Church is and what a disgrace I must be to the Church.
I forgive you.
You just did the very same
You just did the very same thing you criticize others for in their responses. Just thought you'd like to reflect on that a bit, Fr. JohnC (and I do believe you are a real priest!).....
"Because if you are, you
"Because if you are, you should leave. You are obviously too bitter and angry to remain in the Church. "
Second John,
How Christ-like of you. I'm sure you have a scriptural basis for this comment! It usually is the conservatives who suggest people leave the church! The more liberal posters rarely, if ever, take that tact! There is room for all!
Cheers,
Ordination of men only
Ordination of men only belongs to the doctrines de fide tenenda. Infallible and irrevocable. As simple as 2+2=4... Anyone who does not give this assent is rightly understood to have set "himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church." (Canon 750.2) and has opened himself up to a just penalty after having been warned (Canon 1371.1)
_________________
The Almighty is warning the RCC and it's mini-me-minions thru Vatican II and the People of God that there is a "just penalty" for fraud!
Attached to this "just penalty" should be damages caused in teaching "holy" sexism across the globe
CHURCH’S
CHURCH’S SELF-DELEGITIMIZATION:
On the Eve of “The AMERICAN CATHOLIC COUNCIL”
=========================================
A broad-stroke review of hierarchical activity from 1965 to the present time gives the laity a distinct sense that the episcopacy has been radically corrupted from within and the People of God have been radically defrauded.
The revelation of church fallibility and corruption “from within” occurred in the context of drafting and issuing the Humanae Vitae Encyclical. Arthur Jones coined an apt phrase that describes this sorry happening, “the dawn of the Wojtyla-Ratzinger continuum.” [“The Roman Imposition,” The NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER, Vol. 41, No. 39, pp. 7&8, September 9, 2005; Sylvester L Steffen, “Woman in a Shoe,” Appendix B, pp. 45&46, THE POSSIBLE JOURNEY, UNCOMPROMISED TRUST]
http://www.authorhouse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?Book=257970
In drafting the encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI convened a panel of laity to provide input, consistent with the legitimate authority of laity in Church. However, in evaluating the lay contribution, Pope Paul VI was persuaded to issue the encyclical “clean” of lay input. Ever since, and with justification, laity have insistently and consistently rejected Humanae Vitae, not only because of the overt clerical snub of the laity by Rome but also because of clerical prejudice adverse to female/ male equivalency.
The papacy of John Paul II pursued his determination to reject other essential aspects of the Second Vatican Council, specifically, Liberation Theology, by electing bishops and cardinals who favored Tridentine Theology/ Ecclesiology over Vatican II Theology/ Ecclesiology. Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” under Pope John Paul II) continues in his papacy with the Wojtyla-Ratzinger conspiracy to delegitimize The Second Vatican Council and return to disciplines of Tridentine Theology/ Ecclesiology.
What more evidence of “church fallibility” is needed than this imposition on the people, conspired and executed in the course of the last 55 years? One can only hope that this matter receives priority attention in the upcoming (June 10-12, 2011) AMERICAN CATHOLIC COUNCIL “Celebrating the Spirit of Vatican II.”
Dear Father John N., Today's
Dear Father John N., Today's priests have a most difficult time teaching the Word of God as many listeners have a pre-conceived opinion as to what Scripture says. We all are chastened to Know God, Love God, and to Serve God, and most of us do not try to learn Who God is by listening ( truly Listening ) to His Word as taught by all in Authority in the Catholic Church. Oh we are so much smarter than all of them. It is now fashionable to be critical of the Vatican and all the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church but we do so at our peril. You and all your colleagues are in our prayers daily. Pray for all of us that God's Words penetrate our innermost thoughts every day.
Do you hear what you are
Do you hear what you are saying? If we question the teaching of the church, we must be wrong--is that what you really believe? Questioning is not the same as rejecting and imposing is not the same as believing. Get with it man.
The whole thing is
The whole thing is absolutely, profoundly, absurd. The argument that is put forward to give reason for no women priests is that Jesus only chose men to be his disciples. We know for a fact that women were with Jesus as he traveled,and that he chose Mary Magdalene to be the first witness to his resurrection. Look around you in your parishes and see how many lay women serve the church . Are women less holy? Are they basically unclean? Are they less educated than men? As Andrew Greeley once said if you want to upset the church as we know it "educate your women." (Those who know Greeley, know he is a great supporter of women.) Well, we are educated, in Scripture, Theology, and Church History. So what is the argument when the church needs us. Only a real man can see a women as equal. What does that say about those men who oppose women as priests.
Jesus only chose Jewish men,
Jesus only chose Jewish men, so how can we have Italian, German and Polish priests/Popes? Obviously, some enlightened people said "let's include non-Jewish men as well." I see no reason why it can't be extended to women as well. Believe in infallibilty if you want. I am infallible because I say I am infallible. Nonsense.
This is excellent ~ applying
This is excellent ~ applying their fundamentalist reasoning to discern and deconstruct other actions.
"Jesus only chose Jewish men,
"Jesus only chose Jewish men, so how can we have Italian, German and Polish priests/Popes?"
It's rather obvious if you have any background in theology at all. It's an issue of essence versus accident -- the sex of the individual is very clearly essential, whereas the race or nationality (or religion) is not. This is a total non-issue. Do your research.
"I see no reason why it can't be extended to women as well."
See above. There is no way you can get to the argument that having, say, Asian priests means we should have women priests along the basis of in persona Christi or of sex = race.
"Believe in infallibilty if you want. I am infallible because I say I am infallible. Nonsense."
The teaching authority of the Magisterium forms one of the core bases of Catholicism.
It's rather obvious if you
It's rather obvious if you have any background in theology at all. It's an issue of essence versus accident -- the sex of the individual is very clearly essential, whereas the race or nationality (or religion) is not. This is a total non-issue. Do your research.
_________________________________
XTRA XTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT INDEPENDENT THOUGHT/FREE INQUIRY CAUSE BIG FLAP AT VATICAN. MAKES MAGISTERIUM LOOK ACCIDENTAL.
Free thought forged the
Free thought forged the Church.
Ideological flaccidity and lack of critical thinking is what characterizes her current opponents.
Ideological Fatulence is what
Ideological Fatulence is what characterizes the current RCC so called magisterial teaching authority. Much worse than flaccidity!!!
XTRA XTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT:
XTRA XTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT: JESUS APPEARS IN "PINK SMOKE" TELLS VATICAN HUMANITY IS ESSENTIAL TO PRIESTHOOD GENDER IS NOT!
Anonymous on May. 27,
Anonymous on May. 27, 2011.
You stated:
("Jesus only chose Jewish men, so how can we have Italian, German and Polish priests/Popes?"
It's rather obvious if you have any background in theology at all. It's an issue of essence versus accident -- the sex of the individual is very clearly essential, whereas the race or nationality (or religion) is not. This is a total non-issue. Do your research.
"I see no reason why it can't be extended to women as well."
See above. There is no way you can get to the argument that having, say, Asian priests means we should have women priests along the basis of in persona Christi or of sex = race.
"Believe in infallibilty if you want. I am infallible because I say I am infallible. Nonsense."
The teaching authority of the Magisterium forms one of the core bases of Catholicism.)
--------------------------------------------
Well St. Peter certainly was not considered INFALLIBLE. And neither were any of the other Pope up to Pius Nono.
If Peter wasn't infallible---his successors can't be considered infallible, either. You can't pass on what you don't have.
"Well St. Peter certainly was
"Well St. Peter certainly was not considered INFALLIBLE. And neither were any of the other Pope up to Pius Nono."
Papal infallibility is retroactively extant. In other words, the fact that it was not articulated until later does not mean that there were not instances in which prior Popes did not speak infallibly.
"If Peter wasn't infallible---his successors can't be considered infallible, either. You can't pass on what you don't have."
See above for why this is an idiotic line of reasoning. Furthermore, this statement doesn't even stand if you accept the prior premise, unless you demonstrate the fact that lack of consideration of infallibility is synonymous with lack of infallibility.
One person's "essence" is
One person's "essence" is another person's "accident."
Some people are wrong.
Some people are wrong.
It's rather obvious that sex
It's rather obvious that sex is essential according to your thinking because Jesus was a male. Before his maleness his essence a human being and his sex is accidental. We can get into philosophical or thoelogical arguments, but the whole argument about only males can be priests because Jesus was male and only males can represent him is baloney, pure and simple. It is patriarchy, and nothing more, perpetuated by a patriarchal hierarchy.
"It's rather obvious that sex
"It's rather obvious that sex is essential according to your thinking because Jesus was a male."
Did I say this? No. I said that sex is essential. This is entirely independent of Jesus' sex.
"Before his maleness his essence a human being and his sex is accidental."
Again, I never said this. In fact, normally I wouldn't respond to a straw man like this, but I will this time: sex was essential before Jesus. That's what makes it essential, among other things.
I would say that built within
I would say that built within Jesus' DNA was a determination of his sex, eye color, height, etc. He was male because he received a Y chromosome from his father. If he didn't have a human genome, he wouldn't be human. So his humanity is essential and his sex accidental. Talk about your theological mumbo jumbo all you want; you have bought into the patriarchal thinking that leads to dismissing 50% of humanity.
Dear Anonymous, just as you
Dear Anonymous, just as you cannot get from Asian priests to women priests, you also cannot get from Jesus is a man to only men should be priests. You will have to explain how you justify that leap. The logic seems to be, Jesus chose to become human as a man; he chose only men to be Apostles; thus, only men can be priests. The first premise is a fact--Jesus became human as a male. What that means in terms of priesthood, however, is pure speculation and a matter of interpretation. Also, the fact that Jesus chose several married men, especially Peter, to be priests, assuming that is what he did, that fact seems irrelevant to the Church in its decision about who can be priest. The second premise above is highly debatable. There is plenty of scriptural passages and ancient reliable sources that suggest women also were Apostles. As a result, the conclusion that only men can be priests is tenuous at best because it does not follow from valid premises. If you have other premises that would make the conclusion true, please share them. I doubt you do. In addition, even if the argument presented to justify an all-male priesthood were valid, you would still need another argument to support the Church's claim that it has no authority to ordain women. For, Christ gave power and authority to the Church to bind and loosen what it sees fit to bind and loosen. All it needs is a good justification for doing so, based primarily on its interpretation of scripture. When it comes to the ordination of women, that doesn't seem all that difficult even for a dim wit like me. What does seem clear is that the Church has the authority to claim that it does not have the authority to ordain women. But please don't lay that off on Jesus. He has enough to worry about. And don't blame it on scripture. It ain't there either.
I agree. The hysterical focus
I agree. The hysterical focus on the sex of the person with a priestly vocation does point to a bigoted motivation.
When I hear the argument that the Church is unable to ordain women as priests because only male apostles of Jesus are recorded in the apostle lists (which are not even perfectly consistent between Matthew and Luke), I think that the argument these folks need to try to make is not that Jesus did not choose women for apostles, but that Jesus was unable to choose women for apostles. That needs to be the argument. Not that I'd be persuaded by that one, either, but the folks who argue this way need to be arguing that latter statement, not the former.
So why be Catholic? You call
So why be Catholic? You call the doctrine of infallibility 'nonsense'. If you don't believe it, why be it? Why be Catholic? There are many things you could be, but when you pick and choose what you will believe it begs the question: Why? Why do you believe what you believe? Is it because those things seem reasonable to your own mind? Ok, do you believe in a 3-in-1 God? If not, again, respectfully, why be Catholic?
Jacob88: this may come as a
Jacob88: this may come as a total shock to you, but all Catholics, from the Pope down to the little altar server, pick and choose what they believe. That is human nature. In addition to that, there is no one human alive that even knows what all the Catholic Church teaches. The Vatican contains thousands of volumes of stuff written by popes and saints and theologians over the centuries to the extent that now no one knows what the Church teaches. You can't even read the catechism and get a clear picture. Much of what appears in there is also up for debate and much of it needs clarification and explanation. So, why be Catholic? Why not? Just because you are Catholic does not mean that you no longer have to think for yourself.
I agree with the above. The
I agree with the above. The Church is in desparate need of women ministers. So many women are either hanging in by a thread, struggle daily with faith issues or have already left the Church.
Post new comment