The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Archbishop explains why he barred nun-catechist
Catechist says: "It is vitally important that dialogue continue"
Sep. 09, 2009
Louise Akers
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionThe decision by the archbishop of Cincinnati to bar Sister of Charity Louise Akers from teaching catechetics on behalf of the archdiocese because of her public support of women's ordination in the Catholic church has "garnered international attention" for the archbishop and the sister, according to a report by The Catholic Telegraph, the official organ of the archdiocese.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update Sept. 15: Volunteer catechist ousted after voicing support for Sr. Akers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Questions have been raised about the role of a diocesan bishop and the teaching of catechetics in his diocese,” Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk told The Catholic Telegraph Sept. 3. “It is a bishop’s responsibility to provide authentic and orthodox Catholic teaching in his diocese. Persons who are not in accord with the teaching of the church should not expect to be allowed to teach catechetical leaders or others in the name of the church.”
Her public position, he told the newspaper, is in defiance of the church’s teaching.
“We don’t hire people to teach only infallible doctrine; we hire people to teach what’s in the Catechism of the Catholic Church,” he explained. “As a result, Sister Louise may not teach in the name of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati or at any venue for which the archdiocese is responsible.”
Akers joined the Sisters of Charity in 1960. Since 1979, she had served in a number of archdiocesan posts related to the Social Action Office and had been frequent teacher on justice issues the Office of Catechesis and Evangelization as well as an adjunct and visiting professor at Mount St. Joseph and at Xavier University..
The news about an Aug. 10 meeting between Akers and Pilarczyk was first made public with a story posted to the NCR Web site Aug. 31, where it quickly became the most popular article on the site.
The Catholic Telegraph ran its story, titled "A bishop has the responsibility to insure teaching is authentic," Sept. 4 and updated it Sept. 8.
Akers had told NCR that She had requested a meeting with Pilarczyk after being informed that persons upset with her teaching had registered official complaints with church officials. Central to those complaints were both the presence of her name and photo on the Women’s Ordination Conference Web site and her membership on its advisory board.
Pilarczyk asked that Akers remove her name from the ordination Web site and that she publicly rescind her support of the ordination of women. Akers complied with the first request, but not the second. “To do so would go against my conscience,” Akers told NCR.
“For four decades I have devoted my ministry to advocating on behalf of the marginalized through religious congregations, justice organizations, ecumenical and interfaith groups” Akers told NCR. “Women’s ordination is a justice issue. Its basis is the value, dignity and equality of women. I believe this to my very core. To publicly state otherwise would be a lie and a violation of my conscience. I love, support and cherish the part of Church that upholds the gospel mission and vision of Jesus.”
She reiterated her stance to The Catholic Telegraph Sept. 8 .“Foremost it, for me, is primacy of conscience which has always been of paramount importance in the history of our church,” she said. “For me to publicly support the current church teaching forbidding women’s ordination would be a lie. The value, dignity and equality of womanperson is at the core of my stance.”
Akers told The Catholic Telegraph, “I believe historically we have seen an evolution of doctrine in other areas of church teaching. This has happened for a number of reasons — some scientific, others through a dialogue of theologians and scripture scholars with the magisterium of the church,” Akers said.
“I believe even though it is difficult within the climate of our church and our country it is vitally important that dialogue continue," she told the newspaper.
She also said: “If there are penalties for raising questions — which many are doing including some bishops and priests — then, yes, I will accept them. However, I do not understand why this is happening now. I have been public for over 30 years regarding the role of women in the church.”
The Catholic Telegraph carried a statement from Sr. Barbara Hagedorn, president of the Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, that called Akers “a member in good standing of the Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati." The statement confirmed the facts of the case but made not further comment, stating "Because this is a personnel matter of the archdiocese, the issue remains between the archbishop and Sr. Louise Akers.
“The Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati support Sr. Louise and all those involved in this difficult situation with our prayers and concern.”
Read NCR's earlier story on this: Cincinnati nun given ultimatum over ordination views
"The value, dignity and
"The value, dignity and equality of womanperson is at the core of my stance", so says Sr. Louise. My question, what is "womanperson"? Sounds like typical far-left neo-feminist nonsense to me. Is it that "women" is unacceptable since it has "men" in it? Why isn't "woman" unacceptable then, since it has "man" in it? Or is this some silliness that is original to Sr. Louise. In any event, her choice of such a non-word merely confirms that she should not be teaching anything!
As to the question at hand, this quote says all that needs to be said: “It is a bishop’s responsibility to provide authentic and orthodox Catholic teaching in his diocese. Persons who are not in accord with the teaching of the church should not expect to be allowed to teach catechetical leaders or others in the name of the church...We don’t hire people to teach only infallible doctrine; we hire people to teach what’s in the Catechism of the Catholic Church...As a result, Sister Louise may not teach in the name of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati or at any venue for which the archdiocese is responsible.”
Quid erat demonstrandum. God bless His Grace, Archbishop Pilarczyk.
St. Anthony of Padua, "Hammer of the Heretics", pray for us.
You, and others of your ilk,
You, and others of your ilk, are what is wrong with the direction of our Church today. I am extremely tired of being labeled on the side of the heretics, such as this fine "womanperson" religious. You reactionary, right-wing individuals who wish to suppress any discussion of what you do not consider orthodoxy are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, it has been my experience that liberals, such as myself, give you room and respect for your opinions, yet you label us as heretics. Exceedingly tiresome, and I just had to blow off some steam at you. You are a mess!
If you teach a doctrine other
If you teach a doctrine other than that taught by the Catholic Church you are by definition a heretic. That does not mean that a "liberal" or "progressive" Catholic is automatically a heretic. It does mean that if you do not accept the teachings (ALL OF THEM), then you are not in communion with Rome and thereby a heretic, pagan, or schismatic. Here are some simple ways to determine if you are a heretic.
1. Do you believe the Church should have women priests? If you answered yes, you are a heretic since as recently as 1994, Pope John Paul II declared that it a matter for ALL the faithful to accept the fact that priests may only be men.
2. Do you believe in contraception? If so, you are a heretic since Pope Paul VI declared the act intrinsically evil in 1968.
3. Do you believe the Pope teaches on doctrine and faith infalliably or not? If not, you are a heretic.
Orthodox Catholics do not have to call you a heretic, you decide for yourself based on what you choose to believe or not believe.
Uh, no, Tom A., the church
Uh, no, Tom A., the church teaches that there are levels of teachings. They are not all dogma; they are not all primary. Infallibility has been an evolving proclamation, and is very different in its original meaning when proclaimed than the proclamation you are making. Guess that's an evolution of some kind or other...
Tom don't rush. Wait after a
Tom don't rush. Wait after a hundred or so years. You'll see (from above or from below) what will have become of your male-dominated, sex-obsessed, and omniscient Church. The Church is ultimately accountable not to the pronouncements of the Pope but to God. You should know He's infinitely more patient and understanding than we imagine Him to be. And don't overturn Jesus' 'sabbath was made for man' into 'man was made for the sabbath.' One of the most important things that matter today IN the Church is for us, laity and clergy, to build up the one Church not by condemning those who disagree with us as heretics but by following the evangelical injunction: "love one another." I would rather belong to a heretical church who loves than with your orthodox catholic Church who condemns.
Wait, wait, wait......it
Wait, wait, wait......it seems to me that you are using the term "heretic" far too liberally here. It only serves to inflame and distort what could be a theologically useful exchange. First of all, the papal teachings you mention above were not proclaimed to be infallible, so one cannot be "heretical" in disagreeing with it, or presenting other thoughts about it. When you do that,Tom A., you distort the factual truth and you unfairly label people in the worst possible manner. Such talk is so unlike the examples that Christ Himself gave us, so please reconsider your way of responding. By the way, I would suggest that you do some studying on the matter of papal infallability - popes do not speak infallibly automatically: they must state if what they say is to be considered as beyond question and from God Himself, among a number of other things. Otherwise, you might find yourself being charged with heresy by some unlearned person!
I'm sorry....it doesn't have
I'm sorry....it doesn't have to be infallible teaching.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: her·e·tic
Pronunciation: \ˈher-ə-ˌtik, ˈhe-rə-\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth
2 : one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine : nonconformist
Tom A, ...and if YOU answered
Tom A,
...and if YOU answered these questions to favor these 1994 and 1968 "human teachings" not based on the Gospels nor on the mission of Jesus, you would call yourself a ...?
Thanks for this good laugh... Now I know what will be my "FINAL" test questions! (I see you'll be studying and living the teachings of Popes, not on being faithful to the Gospel.)
Whatever happened to acting
Whatever happened to acting in this heresy thing?
Is it heretical to discuss something as opposed to teaching it?
Is it heretical to disagree with a teaching while obeying it in ones action?
If Sr. Akers is a heretic why didn't her bishop excommunicate her?
...interesting, and no doubt
...interesting, and no doubt what you say is in accord with what the orthodox factor of the Church decrees...yet there is a big BUT
1. You are correct, again, in what Pope John Paul II has put forth. There are those amongst us, who think that declaration is a political statement of a posturing papacy playing theological chess...chess mate you might say with that maneuver, or as I would say manipulation. The Council of Trent declared eating meat on Friday was forbidden under pain of mortal sin. That was changed with dynamic evolvement of modern world. What happened to the sin of modernism. There is no theological basis for preventing women priests, just a bunch of tired old men, abusing an hierarchical position of authority to exercise its whim of misogyny...a game of 'we gotcha'.
2. Vatican II was about to relax the Church's position since Casti Connubii...what happened: the Church was fearful of scandal that it had changed a position. This was in despite of a preponderance of faithful, and contrary to the wishes and beliefs of the faithful. The Church has always needed to be dragged 'kicking and screaming' into the world of evolving knowledge. The Church history is and always has been reactionary. Humanae Vitae is antagonistic to the clear thinking and knowlegeable faithful and cause celebre for the faithful departing.
3. Vatican I put the Church in an impossible situation. A situation that calls for the Church to put its authority before its dogma. A situation contrary to much of Church history, inwhich during the high middle ages it was determined that the councils ruled above the pope on faith and morals. The Church, unfortunately, rules by anathema, excommunication, heretic and not by enlightened thought...kindly give examples of progressive thought and action of the Church; there is none. Pius IX and Pius X are examples of the counter enlightenment.
*. Finally, the early Church was a gathering of the faithful. What we now have is an abuse by those who have attained power, and have solidified such power by methods you cite and argue to the rule of reductionism; not in communion with Rome. The Church hierarchy might well be the author of its own demise...rightful thinking people have left it behind.
Using your logic, John Paul
Using your logic, John Paul II is a heretic because he praised Martin Luther, who had been excommunicated in 1521. All science instructors at Catholic Universities are heretics because the sun-centered solar system theory was declared heretical in 1633. All forms of contraception were condemned until 1853, when periodic abstinance was allowed. Does that mean the Pope and Church were incorrect up to 1853, or incorrect only after that date?
The Pope teaches infallibly only when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Encyclicals and other statements of the Pope do not carry this weight. The Apostles were indeed told to go and teach all nations. But I think that instruction was limited to the Good News that mankind and God had been reconciled.
Tom A., your comments of
Tom A., your comments of September 10 reflect ignorance about church teaching.
1. Not only do I believe the church *should* have women priests. I believe the church *can* have women priests. Please visit http://www.ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/papal-envoy-sent-move-us-... to see (and, I hope, study) the discussion between "Mike in KC" and me on this topic. Not only have most scholars seriously challenged the underlying assumptions of "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" (what management practice would call "excuses" rather than "reasons"), but most Catholics have not received this teaching from the late pope and his CDF head.
2. The phrase "intrinsic evil" merely refers to an act that is inherently wrong, nothing more, nothing less. Moreover, as Cathleen Kaveny, professor of law and theology at Notre Dame, has observed, "But to say that an act is intrinsically evil does not by itself say anything about the comparative gravity of the act" ("Intrinsic Evil and Political Responsibility," AMERICA MAGAZINE, October 27, 2008, linked at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3110 titled "The Meaning of Intrinsic Evil").
3. Most papal pronouncements are NOT, in fact, infallible teaching. Furthermore, a lesser category of church teaching, sometimes referred to as "definitive doctrine," creates perhaps as many problems as it is supposed to somehow resolve. The only "recent" infallible papal pronouncements are the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950). When one considers that these two dogmas make no substantive demands on the faithful and that other important papal teachings in the intervening years, e.g., Humanae Vitae, have never been issued with the "Infallible" label, one can quickly understand why popes are loathe to use this authority only first recognized at Vatican I (and after much contentious debate, at that!). Even the doctrine of papal infallibility implicitly acknowledges the "sense of the faithful" in its acknowledgement of the preservation from error enjoyed by the whole church!
The information I've shared with you, Tom A., is thoroughly "orthodox."
Excuse me but Vatican Council
Excuse me but Vatican Council II only made reference to the question of contraception being under study. Where do you come off saying that a pastoral council was about to make a doctrinal change? Furthermore the issue of contraception per se was not really under review. The only question was whether the estrogen pill not ilicit in itself could be allowed to regulate births. All truly contraceptive methods which interfere with the sexual act or spermicides were never under review.
Also, it was Vatican II itself which said that those teachings of the ordinary magisterium constantly re-affirmed are indeed infallible. The teaching against contraception includes pronouncements by Pius XI, Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul I (one of the few things he spoke about), JPII (who made a virtual cottage industry out of speaking against contraception) & Benedict XVI. That is 6 Popes who have taught against contraception and 5 Popes who classed the estrogen pill as contraceptive when that is the intent of its use. The pill is allowed for licit use when the contraceptive effect is indirect. It wasn't around prior to the papacy of Pius XII. Like it or not this teaching is infallible by the very words of Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium).
Where does Lumen Gentium
Where does Lumen Gentium raise the ordinary teaching authority of the Holy See to the level of an ex cathedra statement? LG25 states that the faithful are to observe and obey the ordinary teaching authority, especially those teachings which are consistently reaffirmed. It does not refer to them as infallible. However, other Conciliar statements allow for continued discussion of these matters, and still others, allow individuals to disobey if by obeying the teaching they would violate their consciences.
The Magisterium on
The Magisterium on contraception has not been accepted. How can that mean it's valid? The evidence is in the pews. The two-and three-child family is the norm. Why? Because God also gave us reason.
We had five children under seven which induced years of poverty and manual labor. The whisper in my ear: Areyou sure it's safe?" made me feel like getting up and reading a book, because I could NEVER be sure it was safe.
This did not improve our marriage or give our oldest enough mothering.
Try living with an extremely long and irregular cycle. If I conceived on a previously "safe" day, lop off a few more "safe" days.
I know three families (in one the husband is a deacon!)who resorted to
sterilization because the price of another pregnancy was untenable. Who cares for the other small children if the mother dies? Or has a breakdown due to almost continual pregnancy?
Yes, as well as supporting
Yes, as well as supporting the death penality, the Iraq war or not supporting workers right to organize. The list goes on and on and, at one point or another, just about all of us labeled as heretics and the structure of The Church as that of a cult. Fortunately, there is the primacy of conscious. But you left that out. Do you not respect that teaching of The Church?
You cannot be a heretic if
You cannot be a heretic if you believe in women's ordination because no dogma of faith have been declared saying so. "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" is just and apostolic letter, not a formal declaration of a dogma. Whatever "Ordinatio" teaches regarding women cannot be considered infallible because it fails to be so for the following reasons, according to "Lumen Gentium" 25 in Vatican II: the bishops, in union with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), must be involved in a collegial exercise of teaching authority (no council or synod where convoked on this matter ever); the bishops must have freedom to express their opinions on the matter discussed (which is not the case); the bishops must read the Word of God and listen to the faith of the people (which have never happened); the teaching intended must be a teaching of faith (which is not the case); the bishops must want the teaching to be definitive (only the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith wanted such a thing). None of these conditions have been fulfilled with this apostolic letter, so the letter does not qualify to be considered a dogma, but just a disciplinary document. So you can believe women can be ordained and remain catholic and be saved.
If you talk about what is contained in Vatican I and II about infallibility, yes, you can be heretic if you don't accept that the Pope is infallible in matters of doctrine and faith. But the ban of ordination of women is not a matter of faith, but a human made law, based in sexism and superstition that contaminated Church doctrine for centuries. So it does not qualify to be considered a dogma of faith.
Teaching that women cannot be ordained is like teaching that the earth is flat: it is simply not true. You cannot force people to believe something just because you're the Pope. It have to be true and have to be accepted by the Universal Church. In primitive times, there was a Pope who, while trying to unite the western and oriental churches, failed to defend the doctrine of the double nature of Jesus, as man and God at the same time. Then the common people, who defended the real doctrine, confined the Pope in a church and did not let him leave until he defended the true doctrine. And when Pius IX, the same who declared the dogma of infallibility, wanted to declare the dogma of Immaculate Conception of Mary, while having no time to prepare a Council for that, used a novel system to consult all the bishops, the clergy and the people of God: he postal mail. And with the help of a group of cardinals that served as his counselors, he had the opportunity to check the whole faith about the matter, and to read the opinion of all the bishops, and saw that there was an universal acceptance of such faith. So he could declare the dogma, which was confirmed years later by Our Lady herself in Lourdes.
So the good old nun is not a heretic, and her bishop made the wrong decision.
The responses by readers
The responses by readers about the contraversy created by the archbishop of Cincinnati to bar Sister of Charity Louise Akers from teaching catechetics because of her public support of women's ordination in the Catholic church (see National Catholic Reporter (http://ncronline.org/news/women/archbishop-explains-why-he-barred-nun-ca...) are a typical example of how divisive and militant the Catholic Church has become on the question of Tradition and faith. It would seem that for some conservative Catholics God takes a back seat to Church dogma while a more liberal segment are searching for a God who does not seek favours or offer reward for the ‘right’ answers.
Accordingly, I wonder what God we are following today and does he/she fall into any of the following categories? Perhaps you have many more such images and would be willing to share them with us.
My God can only be found in strict obedience to my religion
To be Holy means to follow strict religious traditions and rules
God’s truth is only revealed in Tradition and Holy Scripture
God’s truth is not revealed outside your particular religious belief, i.e., Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Budhism, etc.
Only the Catholic Church posesses the ‘fullness of the Truth’
God will only love me when I am completely remorsefull and confess my sins
God will only love me when I attend my religious services on a regular basis
God walks away from the sinner
God hates a sinner
God punishes those who do not obey His will for them
God created us in His image therefore he looks exactly like the man painted by Michael Angelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel
At the end of time God will seperate the sinner from the just and cast the sinner into hell for all eternity
God wills that the forces of good and evil engage in a final battle to determine who will join him in heaven and who will be condemned to a fiery hell
God condemns all sexual perverts, including gay’s, lebians, etc.
God condemns those who did not follow the ten commandments
Satan is a seperate entity and wants to steal your soul
No one who does not know Jesus will get to heaven
God condemns people who are Pro-Choice
God condemns people who have committed suicide
The Bible is the direct word from God and without error
New Age is an instrument of the devil (Satan)
God rewards only those who perform good deeds
God wants us to evangelize so that everyone will become members of my particular religion
God punished Doctors and nurses who perform abortions
People who have not been baptized cannot enter heaven
God’s salvation will only be realized upon my death, providing I have confessed my sins
Good things and miracles can only happen to people who are ‘holy’
God keeps a record of all my wrongs and rights
If I or anyone else is suffering, it is God’s will
If my prayers are not answered it is because I have not prayed properly
God does not answer prayers from people who have sinned
Celibacy is a church tradition, not a gift from God who does not desire married clergy
Sex between married couples must be reserved for pro-creation
Jesus was a Jew who founded the Christian Church
Priestly ordination is only for men and not a gift from God which women could also enjoy
God does not have a sense of humour
Masturbation is a sin
Missing Mass is a sin
God is more interested in my sins than my potential
No one can be following God if they are not members of a religious community.
Putting your conscience ahead of religious beliefs, i.e., dogma, doctrine, etc. Is a heresy and a sin
In response to your comment
In response to your comment on September 10th, Tom A, actually the solution is very simple: The church ought to excommunicate all those deemed 'heretics' by you and others in the church.
Actually, that will never happen. Can you say, "cq ching" as in $$$$$$$$$$?
Didn't think so.
And so you wish to be
And so you wish to be anonymous. Why?
If you weren't adhering to a
If you weren't adhering to a heresy, no one would call you a heretic. The "womenpriests" are spreading a malicious anti-Catholic heretical message, it should absolutely be corrected, out of concern for your soul.
"...concern for your soul?"
"...concern for your soul?" And I'm concerned of your anti-Catholic uncharitable name-calling, labeling and angry attitude!
I'm curious how you define 'malicious.' One who has a prayerful relationship with God and speaks what's in her heart is not in danger of losing her soul just because she does not agree with manmade rule for the Church started by Christ.
There are many ordained women today as there were at the time of the Early Church. Most women rabbis today have been ordained from Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionists seminaries. But a few Orthodox women have also become rabbis — and an effort is underway to incorporate more women into the Orthodox rabbinate.
And Jesus was Jewish. So maybe the Roman Catholic Church should seriously reconsider their reason for not ordaining women or for not having married Priests.
What a foolish thing to
What a foolish thing to say.
If you don't follow Church teaching, what do you expect to be called?
Define heretic for me? Yeah...that's right....it's you.
Say all you want - at the end of the day, you're still wrong.
Follow the Church or not. You choose.
Let Pope Benedict XVI and the
Let Pope Benedict XVI and the Magisterium declare who are heretics, not you Anonymous. You're not part of the Magisterium. You're only an ordinary member to be taught, sanctified and governed by the mighty celibate male hierarchs. That's your Church and you should know your divinely appointed place. The Pope and the Magisterium are unhappy with you for being anomalous.
It's too bad there are many
It's too bad there are many hit-and-runs here, those who punch but sign themselves anonymous, so when they speak (write) it's hard to know who they're aiming their punch at.
I must reiterate that in the end, I'll be asked if I was faithful to the Gospel, and not if I was faithful to the Magisterium. If I'm a heretic, so be it. SO were many (now canonized) Saints before me. The Magisterium is NOT my conscience and only I know God speaks in my heart. Thereford, I can't (and won't) label others because I can't know what God speaks in theirs.
"...others will know you are my disciples by your love for each other." (and by the way we live.)
What happened to usury which
What happened to usury which was highly condemned? (We could use that now
when noting the interest paid on late credit card payment--20+--and on ALL cards. Meat on Friday, of course. Go to hell if you deliberately ate which is disproportional.
If you are conversant w/ NT, you will see that patriarchy reared its head
and St. Paul preached one thing (I will not allow women to teach men) and did another. So all female teachers must be furloughed. Jesus said, re Mary and Martha, that Mary did the better thing. What's that? Study theology, not cook.
In Christ, there is neither male nor female. . . But that doesn't apply to the Vatican. At first session of Vatican II, the only women present were the wives of invited nonCatholics. When the Vatican realized how this looked. . .
And, let me see, what
And, let me see, what business is it of yours what language women use to discuss themselves?
What business is it of yours
What business is it of yours how men discuss themselves and the world?
"Quid erat demonstrandum" -
"Quid erat demonstrandum" - What arrogant self-rightness again from Clint Green of the church of evolutionary descending pretence that misogyny has a place in catholicism.
Yes, it is the Archbishop's responsibility to "tow the line". In that he has little wiggle room. What happened though that precipitated this "dis-memberment" after so many years that Sr. Aker was "out of the closet"? The line that is being towed is contrary to reason, faith, informed conscience, rationality and good faith of the common person.
Somehow Catholics of good faith - hierarchy,clergy, religious, laypeople and people tempted to approach Catholicism must raise the question, state their position, accept the consequence and get on with the business of Christ in the world. Let the Vatican fall so that Christ may live.
Complaining about the fact
Complaining about the fact that women cannot become priests makes about as much sense as a man complaining that he cannot become pregnant.
Seriously?
Seriously?
Seriously.
Seriously.
Well, since I don't know you,
Well, since I don't know you, your personality, or your educational background, I'll let that stand. Peace.
I beg to differ with your
I beg to differ with your comparison of ordained women and pregnant men. This is NOT equivalent. Man can NOT become pregnant because of our human bodies are not made like women. This is the way God created us. Our spiritual beings are all the same, as we are all made in the likeness of GOd. The Church did have ordained women (deaconesses) and married men (priests) in the Early Christian Church. I myself do not feel called to be an ordained deacon nor priest, but I know that many are called. The Church (which is human) changes and in the process of these changes, she interferes with the call (vocation) from God (who NEVER changes) to men who are called to be priests, but leave to marry and women who are called to be ordained - as deaconesses or priests - but shunned by the the church and labeled heretics. I won't state as harshly what someone else quoted here (May the Vatican fall so that Christ may live) but we mustn't forget that the Catechism is has been written by the Church (it is not the WORD of GOD). Scripture is the WORD of GOD, and it is in Scripture that we find ordained married men and ordained women. No one knows the Word of GOd that speaks in each of our hearts, thus no one should judge or label others as heretics - we don't know what's in each person's heart, especially one who has a close relationship with God. Bottom line, when we all die we will have to respond to living the Gospel not to knowing what's in the Catechism.
Our "spiritual beings" are
Our "spiritual beings" are all the same? Do you think the difference in gender is only physical? Really? Why would God make two genders if they were only different because of their physical mechanisms? The difference between male and female is profound and beautiful. A true gift worth our respect and contemplation—a gift with real social and theological implications.
Hey, don't blame me - blame
Hey, don't blame me - blame God who made us all in the image of GOD! Hello? Don't you know Scripture? BTW, I said NOTHING about physical image nor about gender!
http://www.jewishvirtuallibra
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/femalerabbi.html
One who has a prayerful relationship with God and speaks what's in her heart is not in danger of losing her soul just because she does not agree with manmade rule for the Church started by Christ.
There are many ordained women today as there were at the time of the Early Church. Most women rabbis today have been ordained from Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionists seminaries. But a few Orthodox women have also become rabbis — and an effort is underway to incorporate more women into the Orthodox rabbinate.
And Jesus was Jewish. So maybe the Roman Catholic Church should seriously reconsider their reason for not ordaining women or for not having married Priests.
No, there were not any
No, there were not any ordained deaconesses. And it has never been allowed for a man who has already been ordained to afterward also become married. Only men who were already married were allowed to be ordained, and with the consent of his wife. Being ordained is not a right. The Church decides who she wishes to ordain among those who are ordainable. No women are called to the ordained priesthood as it is impossible for it to ever happen. Their "calling" comes from elsewhere, but not of God. Even if a dissenter followed the rites of ordination on a woman, she would not be ordained. Her soul will not have the mark imprinted on it. The matter is now closed. It can not be changed as the doctrine has been infallibly declared. Christ was quite the radical of the times back during His ministry. He would have ordained a female Apostle if he did not have a divine reason for not doing so.
There were women deacons just
There were women deacons just as ordained as the men. The matter has always been open. The matter has never closed. God calls women to the priesthood of the RCC. The call to women's ordination comes from God. The attempted closing comes from elsewhere.
One who has a prayerful
One who has a prayerful relationship with God and speaks what's in her heart is not in danger of losing her soul just because she does not agree with manmade rule for the Church started by Christ.
Jesus was Jewish. So maybe the Roman Catholic Church should seriously reconsider their reason for not ordaining women or for not having married Priests.
There are many ordained women today as there were at the time of the Early Church. Most women rabbis today have been ordained from Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionists seminaries. But a few Orthodox women have also become rabbis — and an effort is underway to incorporate more women into the Orthodox rabbinate.
Actually...in the 1100s is
Actually...in the 1100s is when the rule of celibacy actually came into play for clergy. Until that time, priests were allowed to be married and have children, with many of them enthusiastic about the latter. It was this that finally brought it to a head, as the Church was losing property to claims of heirs of clergy. So this was more a matter of protection of assets than a true bonding with God, though we hear that this is what it should be. However, the man who can truly open his heart to God and close it to the world is a rare man indeed, so I think we have priests who struggle daily withe their humanity...and I pray for them each day.
As to ordained women...no woman has been ordained, though there is mention of Phoebe the "deaconess" in the letter of Paul to the Romans. Would I have a problem with female clergy? Nope not at all, since men of today have become a lazy lot. Look at your parishes...look at who is doing the work of God. count how many women there are as opposed to men. Sometimes, I think that if we didn't have beer at some of these work days at the parish, men wouldn't even show up. I am the Chief Counselor of a Columbian Squires group, on eof only 2 in our diocese. Why don't we have more? Because men don't want to participate other than barbecues and beer. So do I have a problem with women serving the sacrifice of the Mass? Not at all...they already know service much more than the men do.
As to married clergy...hurry up, cause if my wife were to die, this will be one lonely deacon...(permanent). I would, of course, obey my bishop with regard to celibacy, but if that were to change...I would at least look at getting remarried...
Pace e bene.
The RCC follows Scripture and
The RCC follows Scripture and Tradition, yet the 'men' in Rome want to throw out the Jewish traditions of our Lord, who founded this Church.
There are many ordained women today as there were at the time of the EARLY CHURCH. Most women rabbis today have been ordained from Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionists seminaries. But a few Orthodox women have also become rabbis — and an effort is underway to incorporate more women into the Orthodox rabbinate.
And Jesus was Jewish. So maybe the Roman Catholic Church should seriously reconsider their reason for not ordaining women or for not having married Priests.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/femalerabbi.html
So where in Scripture is there the ordination of men by Jesus? Wherever you might find this, women were there too.
Not a good analogy. Men can
Not a good analogy. Men can never become pregnant. Women can and will become Priests one day. In Greece they are already deacons within their orders.
What?
What?
Dear Mr. H on Sep. 09, 2009.
Dear Mr. H on Sep. 09, 2009.
So you ARE agreeing that the reason that women are not permitted by the
official Church to be priests is because they do not possess certain
male genitals? That's what it comes down to----as though God really
cares about that.
In your mind and in the minds of the Magisterium---that's the issue.
The priesthood is not about physical qualities---it is about one's
willingness to respond to Christ's call to serve other, to preach
the Gospel and to minister as a presbyter to God's People.
You know, Mr. H.---there are parts of the English-speaking world where
people cannot receive Holy Communion for 6 to 8 weeks---because there
are not enough priests in the diocese---and the vastness of the
diocese in territory---is too great for most priests to travel to each
parish each week. In those places, women---religious and lay and married
couples ARE the pastors of those parishes.
And more than one bishop in those areas has stated that he would be willing
to ordain any of these people as priests----because they are serving in those
leadership capacities. These folks are experiencing a Eucharistic famine---and the Vatican could care less.
What is happening there today---is just around the corner for the United States tomorrow. But the Vatican doesn't care. And our American hierarchy are a bunch of gutless wonders when it comes to letting the Vatican know that either they put this problem on the table and deal with it NOW---or face the consequences later.
What consequences? The kind that Brazil is facing today. This most populous Catholic country had reached a plateau in vocations about 11 years ago. Today for every one Catholic man being ordained a priest---18 married men are being ordained as Evangelical ministers---with large congregations to go to.
Women in Brazil are ready to be ordained. Married men in Brazil are ready to be ordained. But the Vatican, as usual, dithers and prefers to live in the 1950's---because they don't have the courage to face the real issues of today.
In ten years, Brazil will be an Evangelical Protestant country. And the United States----who knows.
And what you are saying, Mr. H----is what makes no sense at all, at all.
So you're saying, Mr. H.,
So you're saying, Mr. H., that the role of a person in the Church and indeed in all of society comes down to the configuration of their genitals?
That their intellect, together with their capacity for compassion and service is trumped by whether they are equipped with a penis and testes versus vagina, ovaries, and uterus?
Seems a bit, well, "fixated" to me.
You seem to be arguing that
You seem to be arguing that gender differences run no deeper than physical body parts.
Such an argument, however, is contradicted by science and by common everyday experience.
Gender differences are not just superficial, but rather permeate to the very core of who we are as human beings, physically, mentally, emotionally.
That said, I ask the following:
1. Why would God create different genders if he did not intend different roles for each?
2. Why is it so difficult to accept that men and women can be called by God to different roles yet remain equal in value and dignity?
3. When selecting his Twelve Apostles, why did Jesus appoint only men?
4. By selecting only males to be His closest collaborators,was Jesus discriminating against women? If not, why is the Church maintaining an all-male priesthood discriminatory?
Submitted by Mr. H (not
Submitted by Mr. H (not verified) on Sep. 11, 2009.
"You seem to be arguing that gender differences run no deeper than physical body parts, etc."
Do you realize that you are using the same arguments that men used to deny women the right to vote in America? These were also the same arguments that universities used to deny women the right to pursue professional studies as doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects, etc.
Those arguments then, were coming out of a male-dominated society that saw wonmen as "too weak mentally, emotionally, physically....and all the other patronizing baloney that men spout off---about women's differences.
In United States alone, the Ursulines were the first religious order of women to come to Quebec to establish schools. They then, moved down further into what is now continental USA, to do the same. Other religious orders followed.
What I say is about religious women---(but lay women carried more than their share of work, too). The Sister had the burden of building, fighting off diseases and a hostile citizenry. The Sisters raised their own money to build their facilities, and then ran their own hospitals, schools, orphanages, homes for the aged, etc. And they had the mental abilities to do that as well. If I just cited the accomplishments of the American Sisters just in the state of New York alone---and what hurdles they overcame, it would take pages and pages on this website. This strength, courage, heroism, was repeated all across America as well. And it can match that of any priest, any day of the week.
Elizabeth Ann Bailey Seton----did everything that you think a woman cannot do.
She was a wife, a widow, a mother (who buried 3 of her children who died because of tuberculosis), established a religious order, supported it and the children who came to the schools that she established, began the American Catholic school system---and did all of that before she died in her mid-40's.
Elizabeth Ann Seton could have run a large parish today (as pastor), with one hand tied behind her back, Mr. H.
Women stood beneath Jesus's cross, Mr. H.---not the men. They were front and center, at the bloody sacrifice of Calvery---no adult male Apostles except a teen-aged boy was there with the women. The other big, brave male Apostles were standing way back in the crowds---as inconspicious as they could be. If today, we say that the Liturgy is both a meal (the Last Supper) and unbloody sacrifice of Calvery---well, the women apostles were there---and it was their proven love for Jesus that put them there.
Women have always, always out-numbered the men 3 to 1 in showing their williness to carry Christ's message of love, forgiveness, compassion in word and action---to the People of God.
So don't you sit there at your computer and rattle off all your chauvinistic
prattle about why women can't be priests. Or the nonsense about why didn't Jesus choose women as his Apostles---he did---their presence in all aspects of his ministry---his life, death and resurrection prove it. And women were present at Penticost, too---to receive the Holy Spirit to inspire them to evangelize others, just like the male Apostles.
So,Mr. H----please go back to your 1880's time capsule. Your comments belong there---not in the 21st Century.
Little Bear - 1. I note
Little Bear -
1. I note that you did not answer any of the 4 questions I posed. Those questions are still there.
2. You seem to be more interested in discrediting me or in name-calling, than addressing the questions I posed. And I can see why. You have painted yourself into a corner. The accusation of discrimination you have tendered against the Church, by your own logic, would also have to be tendered against Jesus who chose only men as His closest collaborators, His Twelve apostles.
3. Yes. Jesus had women followers, but you keep avoiding the fact that he specifically selected twelve people to be his closest collaborators and to play a unique role in His ministry. Those twelve were seated at the table with him at the Last Supper when he instituted the priesthood. Those twelve were all men.
4. You have attributed a lot of views to me that I do not hold. I have no problem with women in the workplace, my personal physician is a woman who I respect greatly, and I would have no problem voting for a woman president. So, I am not sure what your point is. But, that said, I do not believe that men and women are 100% interchangeable, an idea that seems to make you very uncomfortable. For example, I believe that women are not particularly suited to serving as combat infantry soldiers. If that makes me "1880s," so be it.
To Mr. H on Sep. 14, 2009. I
To Mr. H on Sep. 14, 2009.
I called you NO names.
But I ask you, who determined different roles for people on this earth? Was it God? Or was it the male dominated society? Was this not the result of Original Sin---that God's plan for the human race was turned topsy-turvy?
Man assumed dominance of all societies, over women and children. Man made other humans slaves, foisted war upon them. Is that God's fault? Was that God's purpose for the human race? Or was it the result of the terrible sin that was separating humans from God---who loved/loves us so much that God sent us Jesus.
Mr. H., Jesus came to show us that the world that we
WE had made was wounded, twisted, not what God had in mind for us. Jesus gave us everything that he had to show God's tremendous love---his life, his ministry among us, his body and blood, his death and resurrection---his promise of the Holy Spirit, his promise of eternal life forever with him.
And Christ dealt with both men and women---understanding how to respond to each person. To state that Jesus selected the Apostles to be leaders in his Church---I can assent to that. But, in the same breath, to state that they and only they were ORDAINED as PRIESTS, No---they were not.
As so many other posters on this site have stated so eloquently, there was no ordination at the Last Supper. Jesus simply did not do that. And in the history of the early Church---both men and women were presiders at the Meal. The early churches were at home. During persecution, they were in hiding places---out of town, in the catecombs---but the leader of the group was the presider---and women did do this as well as men.
For the Church today to keep on insisting and insisting that this did not happen, is a perversion of the truth and history itself. And it is a denial of the call of service that Christ made/makes to both men and women. It is a call to the soul---made in the image and likeness of God---to respond to---it has nothing to do with gender.
The early Christians saw Jesus as the ONLY HIGH PRIEST---they were not. They were presiders. Christ promised that where two or three were gathered, he was in their midst. And they believed his word. Why can't we do that today? What does gender have to do with being the presider. It is still Jesus who is present at the Liturgy from the beginning until the end---with his people. He joins them to himself in communion. In uniting with him, the people carry Christ out to their homes, work, schools, play---all of society.
You made a comment about not thinking that women would be good in infantry training. My Dad, a career Army man, would probably agree with you. Although he believed that a woman could command Navy ships, or fly fighter planes. I didn't go into his line of work. Can't say.
"To state that Jesus selected
"To state that Jesus selected the Apostles to be leaders in his Church---I can assent to that."
OK. Now we're making progress. Note all of those leaders were men. By your logic, wouldn't you have to say that Jesus discriminated against women by picking 12 men?
the reality is, you have not yet answered my 4 questions. I will make one last attempt, and then I will be moving on to other concerns. Here they are again:
1. Why would God create different genders if he did not, at least in some circumstances, intend different roles for each?
2. Why is it so difficult to accept that men and women can be called by God to different roles yet remain equal in value and dignity?
3. When selecting his Twelve Apostles, why did Jesus appoint only men?
4. By selecting only males to be His closest collaborators,was Jesus discriminating against women? If not, why is the Church maintaining an all-male priesthood discriminatory?
"By selecting only males to
"By selecting only males to be His closest collaborators..."
Not true.
"[W]hy did Jesus appoint only men" to be his Twelve Apostles?
Good question to which Rome has given only anemic response.
"Why is it so difficult to accept that men and women can be called by God to different roles yet remain equal in value and dignity?"
Aside from childbearing capacity, women can do what men can do. It was a woman who first reported the Resurrection to the Lord's disciples. Social "role" can be culturally influenced. We have women, lay and religious, working in mission fields. There is no reason to conclude that women cannot work in the Catholic parish as pastors and assistant pastors.
"Why would God create different genders...?"
Companionship and, if biologically possible, reproduction. All other expectations are culturally influenced.
Mr. H., LittleBear's modus
Mr. H., LittleBear's modus operandi is never to answer questions and to call names and dispersions. She states the most outlandish things and expects the rest of us to take her word as authority. Resist her desire to bring a legitimate discussion of issues into name calling and assumptions on her behalf.
You seem to be arguing that
You seem to be arguing that gender differences run no deeper than physical body parts.
Read your own post, which I quote in its entirety:
Complaining about the fact that women cannot become priests makes about as much sense as a man complaining that he cannot become pregnant.
If that isn't characterizing it wholly and entirely a pelvic issue, I don't know what is.
Even conceding though that gender differences are bigger than genital differences, you fail to make any compelling argument as to why women are by their very nature, unsuited to ordained ministry.
The arguments always seem to be variations of "we've never done it that way" or "because they're different" or "because the man said so." Or the rather odd proof from the negative that "Jesus didn't do it."
Jesus didn't have an iPod, either. Or a blog.
Let's see if I can help you
Let's see if I can help you here.
1 & 2. "It is not good for man to be alone." Two genders are required for reproduction. Men and women have different roles in reproduction. No one is denying this. But is a distinction based on reproductive roles appropriate to God's ministry? St. Paul writes that "no distinctions are to be made among you.... Jew and Greek, male and female, all are one in Christ Jesus."
3 & 4. Jesus chose men as his Apostles. I'm sure he chose those people best suited to carry out the ministry in his day and time. I don't think I would refer to them as his "closest collaborators" though. They were a very disobedient and greedy lot, always fighting over who would sit at God's right hand and such. I don't recall any Scripture where Mary Magdalene was rebuked for such behaviour. She may not have been suited to carry out a leadership role for reasons quite apart from being female. Jesus didn't appoint gentiles to leadership positions either, but I don't see the Holy Father resigning because he isn't Jewish.
And what planet do you live
And what planet do you live on? Every time I think that we(Catholics ) have gone forward, it seems we always end up in the same place. What are you so afraid of?
Dear dennism, Do I understand
Dear dennism, Do I understand you correctly? Jesus Christ must fall so He, Christ, may live! Makes no sense!
What Tom Warren says is
What Tom Warren says is probably heretical. The Vatican isn't Jesus. The Vatican isn't God. The Church isn't God. The Bible isn't God. Only God is God.
Dear Anomymous, Jesus Christ
Dear Anomymous, Jesus Christ instituted the Catholic Church and His successors happen to reside in the Vatican and if we follow your line of thinking who do you say Jesus Christ is? Hum, seems Jesus Christ also asked the same question of His Apostles!
I'm replying to your
I'm replying to your misinterpretation (whether intentionally or sarcastically) that NO ONE mentioned the fall of Jesus Christ. The fall of the Vatican (which represents the human 'maie' authority), for lack of your understanding (or intelligence) is simply that the "Vatican" is "HUMAN" and Christ is not. To some who support the Vatican here, they seem to place it (them, whatever) in a higher priority than Christ or the Scripture - perhaps because they are as intimidated, threatened as males who hold (push) their authority over the Gospel. How sad!
Do I understand you tom, that
Do I understand you tom, that you are equating the Vatican with Jesus Christ?
Jesus did do that and it's
Jesus did do that and it's the basis of our faith. Christ died to be resurrected 3 days later - isn't that just what we believe?
Thanks to "dennism" for
Thanks to "dennism" for bringing up Christ. Hasn't He been overlooked in this discussion, as in "what would Jesus do?"? "Magisterium," "papal infallibility," and even the catechism are all human-made--but not so the Good News of Jesus Christ!
I can't be sure this is the
I can't be sure this is the Clint Green of NCR but the Clint Green writing in "Mother Jones" had this to say about George Bush
"Was Bush a great president, another Lincoln or Jefferson, Washington or Reagan? No, probably not. Did he do his best to always follow his conscience and to do what he thought was in the best interest of the country? Yes, I believe so. The evidence is clear that, even when unpopular, he still stayed the course. To be a true leader, one needs to be prepared to be unpopular. Lincoln understood that. So did Reagan and Bush"
So if it was you Clint, (and I hope you own up to it) we can see the great value of your remarks about Sister Louise.
And the thousands dead in Iraq are testimony to this "conscience".
You know, I forgot that I
You know, I forgot that I ever wrote that. That must have been when I went through my phase of caring what the political left says. Now that I see what they do when they have power, I recognize that it is unnecessary for me to comment...their extremism and radicalism speaks for itself.
However, I stand by my comments. President Bush, while not always right, always did what he thought and believed was right. He didn't worry about the polls, he didn't worry about his legacy, he worried about protecting the American people. He swore an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" and that is what he tried to do.
And, I also stand by my comments about Sr. Louise. As John Adams famously said, "facts are stubborn things". The fact is that women cannot be ordained priests - the Church does not have the authority to do so and this is a defined teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, and, as part of that teaching office, is considered infallible in as much as the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, so said the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The fact is that Sr. Louise has been publicly advocating actively against a defined teaching of the Church, and this causes great scandal and division. The fact is that the Archbishop gave her an opportunity to publicly recant and retract her position and did so in a spirit of openness and fairness; he did not take action first and then say "if you want back in, do this..". The fact is that Sr. Louise, whatever her motivation, refused to do so; she refused to answer the call of conversion and fidelity that His Grace offered her. The fact is that as a result of HER REFUSAL, she is no longer able to teach in any official capacity in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati.
I fail to see the problem. Her situation is clearly and one hundred percent of her own making.
QED.
Clint, Thanks for owning up
Clint, Thanks for owning up to you fulsome praise of George Bush.
"Now that I see what they (the political left) do when they have power, I recognize that it is unnecessary for me to comment...their extremism and radicalism speaks for itself."
Well, then Clint, who bother reading NCR and why not stick to venues like EWTN. Where you would be most happy. You seem to care very much what is said here at NCR.
But to your note about infallibility and your instruction about "Ordinary Magisterium" you might profit by examining the work of the Jesuit Wittgenstein scholar Garth Hallet who argued that the dogma of infallibility was neither true nor false but meaningless.
Northcountry1 does EWTN have
Northcountry1 does EWTN have an interactive forum like the NCR provides and where one is given space to express freely his/her theological views and/or label ultraconservatives in the Church as heretics?
Actually, I am well aware of
Actually, I am well aware of what Fr. Hallet said. He was the dean of the College of Philosophy and Letters at St. Louis University when I was a student at SLU in the mid-90s. He was also my academic advisor, a good priest and a first-rate scholar. Having said all of that, however, the important thing is what the Church has defined. The First Council of the Vatican defined infallibility as related to the office of supreme pontiff and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has consistently explained the doctrine of infallibility as it applies to the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.
See, this is the problem with some folks on the left. They constantly try to find "outs". They point to the work of this theologian or that scholar as some sort of supporting evidence that the Church is wrong. Fr. Hallet, whom I have great respect for, calls into question the dogma of infallibility. Thus, some on the left use that as an excuse to say "Well, the Church is not infallible. I don't have to listen to her." A theologian says that he can cite references in Scripture or tradition that says women could be ordained priests. Thus, some on the left say "The Church is wrong and being unjust!" But, you see, the Church does not redefine its teaching every time a theologian or scholar raises a question. So, despite the respect I have for Fr. Hallet, the Church has defined the doctrine of infallibility and thus it stands and thus, I believe it because the Church has taught it, and the Church has taught it because Christ has revealed it, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.
As to why I read NCR, I get a kick out of reading some of the far left's nonsense. I also feel the need to be up-to-date as to what heterodoxy folks are trying to pass off as truth. Finally, in the hope that I might be an instrument by which Christ brings light into darkness, I offer my own comments and reflections, such as they are, knowing that Christ can do great things even with blunt instruments.
Client has the Magisterium
Client has the Magisterium declared Fr. Haller and his kindred heretics? If yes, please refer me to the proper document. If no, what's the problem?
Of course the Magisterium has
Of course the Magisterium has made no such declaration. I have no problem with Fr. Hallet raising questions, in so doing he provides opportunities and context for the Church to reiterate and reassert her teachings.
The problem comes when someone, say John Doe, uses the fact that such a question has been raised as firm evidence that Mr. Doe's opinions are valid. In other words, Fr. Hallet raises a question about infallibility, and because he does so, Mr. Doe says "I dont have to believe in infallibility, since Fr. Hallet questions it".
That is the problem.
Post new comment