Is the Church Suppressing God’s Will?
Dec 4, 2012
Elizabeth Scalia
The editorial board of the National Catholic Reporter this week endorsed the ordination of women. Basing its position on a 1976 vote by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, on “countless conversations in parish halls, lecture halls and family gatherings,” and on the supposed support of myriad unnamed bishops, the Reporter calls “for the Catholic church to correct this unjust teaching.”
It offers a brief history of “Rome’s response to the call of the faithful to ordain women” that reads rather sourly—all intimidation, bad-faith and litmus tests. The overbearing men of Rome, most particularly Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, are depicted as keeping the good people down and—in this case—suppressing the will of the Holy Spirit.
The Reporter does not explicitly make that last charge. In fact, the editorial does not mention the Holy Spirit, or “God’s will” at all, but if we accept that God is All-Justice, then in arguing that Church teaching on this issue is “unjust” the paper is making an implicit suggestion that the Church has been working against the will of God.
To suppress the will of the Holy Spirit—to suppress the will of God—is a wicked thing. To charge the Church with doing so is to make a serious accusation of wickedness—one bound to have repercussions lasting beyond the heat of a moment. It is to label the Church as antichrist.
So the Reporter does not do it. Instead, the editorial board rests the crux of its argument on the wisdom of Roy Bourgeois, the recently laicized Maryknoll priest:
Bourgeois brings this issue to the real heart of the matter. He has said that no one can say who God can and cannot call to the priesthood, and to say that anatomy is somehow a barrier to God’s ability to call one of God’s own children forward places absurd limits on God’s power. The majority of the faithful believe this.
If “no one can say” who God can and cannot call to the priesthood, then why do we have interview, testing, and discernment processes? Why can’t we all just be priests, any time we want? If corporeal anatomy is completely unconnected to a human being’s essential nature (and this is an argument put forth by feminists and the gender-fixated, who will often pronounce it in one breath only to promote the “sacred feminine” in the next) then why did God design differences at all? By doing so, he created boundaries and barriers, which are clearly unwanted things. Why didn’t God fashion just one human type, without limits to what that type can do, in order to free humanity from the constraints of form and function which impact “God’s [own] ability to call one of God’s own children forward . . .” to do the things they really want to do, whether the Church thinks they ought to, or not?
Golly, I think the Reporter is arguing that God should stop making rocks so heavy that He can’t lift them. Or something.
The editorial board makes an oddly Protestant (dare I say it, Evangelical) argument; it rejects the authority of tradition (and the philosophical ponderings of Holy Men and Women who—we say we believe—were imbued with wisdom by the Holy Spirit) in favor of trending thought. Then it goes sola scriptura, arguing a negative by quoting the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s assessment that “Scripture alone does not exclude the ordination of women,” all of which leads to the pronounced conclusion: “unjust.” The reasoning the Reporter puts forth here, by the way, is identical to the reasoning offered by many on the issue of same-sex marriage: tradition is not authority and the New Testament does not explicitly forbid it. Secondary points are usually social: the sentiment of the times demands it; the expedience of utility demands it, and therefore the teaching of the Church is discriminatory and unjust.
And there we find that implicit charge, again, that the Church is working against the God of All Justice.
Perhaps it is time for the people making these arguments to come right out and say they think the Church is opposing God; let us then have a truly open dialogue about narrow gates and the sufficiency of grace; about what God asks of us, and what God promises in return for obedience. Do we dare have that terrifying, inconvenient conversation?
The Dictatorship of Relativism loves to argue that there is no truth, except the truth it likes; that nothing means anything except as one’s own conscience assigns meaning, and that authority, therefore, is an illusion that must be questioned continually, until the proper answer is attained. The proper answer, of course, is the one asserted and promoted by the relativists and once it has been achieved—and a new authority is in place—then all questioning of authority must cease. Because that authority—their authority—will have become the truly all-just, the truly all-good and all-merciful. And woe to those who do not recognize it.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
National Catholic Reporter
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
12.4.2012 | 3:14am
George Szylkarski says:
Elizabeth Scalia in her article Is the Church Suppressing God’s Will?
explains the decision of the editorial board of the National Catholic Reporter this week to endorse the ordination of women as an example of The Dictatorship of Relativism in progressive catholic circles. It is more than that.
David B Hart in October 2003 in First Things wrote an unbelievably prophetic article Christ and Nothing. David foresaw then what is happening today.
I thoroughly recommend a reading of this classical, once in a lifetime, essay.
Consider this quote "we take as given the individual’s right not merely to obey or defy the moral law, but to choose which moral standards to adopt, which values to uphold, which fashion of piety to wear and with what accessories." This accurately foretold 9 years ago what motivates today not only the National Catholic Reporter but the whole field of the so called catholic progressive theology.
explains the decision of the editorial board of the National Catholic Reporter this week to endorse the ordination of women as an example of The Dictatorship of Relativism in progressive catholic circles. It is more than that.
David B Hart in October 2003 in First Things wrote an unbelievably prophetic article Christ and Nothing. David foresaw then what is happening today.
I thoroughly recommend a reading of this classical, once in a lifetime, essay.
Consider this quote "we take as given the individual’s right not merely to obey or defy the moral law, but to choose which moral standards to adopt, which values to uphold, which fashion of piety to wear and with what accessories." This accurately foretold 9 years ago what motivates today not only the National Catholic Reporter but the whole field of the so called catholic progressive theology.
12.4.2012 | 6:55am
bill bannon says:
Well, it is possible for the Church to act against God because we once burned heretics who we now trust with fixing our brakes and transplanting our hearts and Pope Leo X in 1520AD excommunicated latae sententiae anyone who agreed with Luther that burning heretics was against the Holy Spirit ( see Exsurge Domine, art.33 condemned as " against the Catholic Faith"). I'll spare you other examples. But on this one issue of women priests, why doesn't Pope Benedict use ex cathedra and be done with it. When Tradition is disputed, ex cathedra has the effect of ending all doubt. CDF documents are not a source of infallibility as educated Catholics know. Use ex cathedra. No one debates the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception. That's a miracle. Why is ex cathedra the one charism that everyone trusts and no Pope after 1950 wants to use? It takes time and research? So does writing books or traveling the world as John Paul II did.
12.4.2012 | 7:09am
A. Bailey says:
I dunno. Women are CEOs, leaders of state, Supreme Court members, and in many cases, the breadwinners of their family. They should be banned from Church leadership because that's not the way the Church did it in the Middle Ages? Seems a bit Medieval to me.
12.4.2012 | 7:09am
Joe DeVet says:
No no NO, Elizabeth, the NCR is definitely not "arguing that God should stop making rocks so heavy that He can’t lift them." It may be arguing, however, that God should stop making rocks so heavy that God can't lift them! Or that She can't lift them. Come to think of it, perhaps the problem with God is that He is a She, and is thus rock-lifting-challenged.
12.4.2012 | 8:46am
Hominid says:
So, another institution begins the slow downward slide into that imaginary Liberalist world that sees men and women as equivalent.
12.4.2012 | 8:50am
michael says:
Well put. Let's not forget that according to the New Testament, we "are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."
What is a priest? It is someone who makes sacrifices to God, and we can all offer Him our continuous "sacrifice of praise".
What is a priest? It is someone who makes sacrifices to God, and we can all offer Him our continuous "sacrifice of praise".
12.4.2012 | 8:53am
ROGER says:
It was in 1976 that the Episcopal Church's General Convention passed by a razor-thin margin a canonical change to permit women to be ordained priests. Great assurances were given to those opposed that they would be treated fairly and with respect. Not so. As your article concludes: "...a new authority is in place—then all questioning of authority must cease. Because that authority—their authority—will have become the truly all-just, the truly all-good and all-merciful. And woe to those who do not recognize it. " As one not so gentle feminist told me: "Get with the program or get out!" I wouldn't "get with the program." I "got out" and , to quote Richard John Neuhaus, on the occasion of his conversion to the Catholic Church, "became the Catholic I always was."
12.4.2012 | 9:17am
Guest says:
No big deal. The NCR has been a left-wing activist group since its founding. I think this editorial smacks of desperation. It really is sad; why don't they just admit it, they aren't Catholics and think the Church is, well evil, and convert? I've been asking myself this question for some time. What keeps them in this state of denial? Maybe only the Holy Spirit can answer than one. Once again beautiful writing.
12.4.2012 | 9:18am
J. Bob says:
It would appear the only time the NCR notes God's will, is when it perceives, the Church is not following the NCR doctrine.
12.4.2012 | 9:30am
JP says:
By rejecting the authority of the Vatican and the teachings of the Magesterium, post-modern Catholics are just joining their Protestant Bretheren. This Fellowship of Dissent is eerily similar to Lucifer's refusal to serve - Pride goeth before the fall. NCR's editorial uncovers nothing new. Their points are nothing more than a regurgitation of their radical egalitarianism mixed in with Protestant talking points.
The whole matter has become quite boring.
The whole matter has become quite boring.
12.4.2012 | 9:37am
Deacon JR says:
Hi, Elizabeth--you wrote above: "Basing its position on a conclusion reached in 1976 by the Pontifical Biblical Commission..."
What's really interesting to note is that the NCR is actually appealing to a "NON-conclusion" from the Pontifical Biblical Commission's 1976 document. Nowhere does the document assert that there is evidence of women priests in the Bible (of course) but rather asserts that there is "no proof" of women functioning as administering the Sacraments in the New Testament. In fact, the final few statements (as I've seen them published) are these:
*****It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way and once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the presbyterate. However, some think that in the scriptures there are sufficient indications to exclude this possibility, considering that the sacraments of eucharist and reconciliation have a special link with the person of Christ and therefore with the male hierarchy, as borne out by the New Testament. Others, on the contrary, wonder if the church hierarchy, entrusted with the sacramental economy, would be able to entrust the ministries of eucharist and reconciliation to women in light of circumstances, without going against Christ's original intentions.****
At the end of the day, the PBC (btw, a non-magisterial entity) basically indicates only that the "Bible alone", so to speak, won't resolve the issue, which is to be expected since it is the Magisterium of the Church alone that has the authority to decide the question.
Which, of course, it did--the fact that NCR has chafed under the weight of that answer for two decades and has now "officially" denied an infallible truth of the Catholic Church only makes clear that they have shifted from "NCR" to merely "NR."
God bless,
Deacon JR
What's really interesting to note is that the NCR is actually appealing to a "NON-conclusion" from the Pontifical Biblical Commission's 1976 document. Nowhere does the document assert that there is evidence of women priests in the Bible (of course) but rather asserts that there is "no proof" of women functioning as administering the Sacraments in the New Testament. In fact, the final few statements (as I've seen them published) are these:
*****It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way and once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the presbyterate. However, some think that in the scriptures there are sufficient indications to exclude this possibility, considering that the sacraments of eucharist and reconciliation have a special link with the person of Christ and therefore with the male hierarchy, as borne out by the New Testament. Others, on the contrary, wonder if the church hierarchy, entrusted with the sacramental economy, would be able to entrust the ministries of eucharist and reconciliation to women in light of circumstances, without going against Christ's original intentions.****
At the end of the day, the PBC (btw, a non-magisterial entity) basically indicates only that the "Bible alone", so to speak, won't resolve the issue, which is to be expected since it is the Magisterium of the Church alone that has the authority to decide the question.
Which, of course, it did--the fact that NCR has chafed under the weight of that answer for two decades and has now "officially" denied an infallible truth of the Catholic Church only makes clear that they have shifted from "NCR" to merely "NR."
God bless,
Deacon JR
12.4.2012 | 9:53am
A Reader says:
Where really can one begin with people who believe that "anatomy" is the one and only difference between men and women. Do they ever wonder, as Elizabeth Scalia writes, why God bothered with "male and female he created them".
The former Maryknoll priest and those who take his position apparently have taken it upon themselves to correct God's error. The damage resulting from their point of view is considerable at this time. One wonders just how far they are willing to go.
The former Maryknoll priest and those who take his position apparently have taken it upon themselves to correct God's error. The damage resulting from their point of view is considerable at this time. One wonders just how far they are willing to go.
12.4.2012 | 10:04am
Spudnik says:
I get it now. Jesus did not give bishops and their successors the authority to speak for Him; He gave that authority to editorial boards making vague claims about consensus! It's all so clear. No wonder the Catholic Church is so tiny and provincial compared to the churches that have embraced female priests, same-sex marriage, etc.
12.4.2012 | 10:10am
Patrick says:
There are many powerful and dignified roles women can play in the Church and as faithful Catholics in society. It is just that being a priest is not one of them, just as men cannot bear children.
12.4.2012 | 10:12am
Timothy Jones says:
Oh my, Rick, you predictably end up arguing against any sacraments whatever. Or everything is a sacrament. Or something.
It's only a can of worms for those who refuse any fixed reference point, that is, relativists.
It's only a can of worms for those who refuse any fixed reference point, that is, relativists.
12.4.2012 | 10:17am
JERD says:
Rick's comment - I think unintentionally - proves the error in the NCR position. If the gifts of "priest, profit and king" we receive in baptism have no difference in character from the gifts conferred by holy orders, then mustn't we conclude that there are no sacraments? Because, if all outward signs of the baptized, and all outward signs of the ordained in the conferral of a sacrament, are of equal character (the prayer over the sick and the sacrament of anointing have no difference) then doesn't it follow that nothing can be a sacrament? That my prayer of thanks over my morning toast has no meaningful difference with a Eucharistic prayer at the altar? And if there are no sacraments, then have we not lost the central expression of our faith?
12.4.2012 | 11:00am
Spudnik says:
Drat! Timothy and JERD gave the game away! The sacrament thing wasn't supposed to be brought up yet.
12.4.2012 | 11:03am
S.L. Hersey says:
To be fair, JERD, Rick's is an impeccably Protestant position, and has the virtue of internal coherence. A Protestant might honorably, firmly, and with integrity answer "Yes" to all of your questions save the last, and "No" to the last.
The only real problem with presenting such arguments is that the NCR (unless I'm badly misinformed) isn't supposed to be a Protestant journal; and that such arguments as Rick's aren't designed to cut any ice among people with Catholic presuppositions. There's the rub, isn't it?
The only real problem with presenting such arguments is that the NCR (unless I'm badly misinformed) isn't supposed to be a Protestant journal; and that such arguments as Rick's aren't designed to cut any ice among people with Catholic presuppositions. There's the rub, isn't it?
12.4.2012 | 11:21am
Joe Sansonese says:
Friedrich Nietzsche believed, with some bitterness, that Christianity was an evil doctrine because its teachings, wherever and whenever adopted, were impediments to the un-arbitrated domination of the weakest members of society by the strongest, which they clearly were and are. Without in any way endorsing the premise, we might keep Nietzsche's concern in mind and profitably revisit the anthropological foundations of an all-male priesthood, which comes down to this: without strong, heterosexual men in authority in the Church, the Church will in all likelihood become feminized, and not to anyone's spiritual benefit either.
Absent an exclusively male hierarchy specifically including an all-male presbyterate, we shall have a Church the HIGHEST values of which are nurturing and protection. Now what is wrong with that, one asks? Just this, such values are, one, NOT the primary values for men and, two, not the highest values to which we should aspire (the two are not unrelated). Just as marriage is a civilizing force on innate and potentially obnoxious male instincts of aggression and dominance, so too do Holy Orders, when a man receives and exercises them, can inspire and educate ALL men that Christianity is for them as well, despite its very feminizing tendencies and without their having to become themselves feminized in some manner that will be detrimental not only to themselves but to society in general.
Turning to the theological side of the question, in the Old Testament we meet the remarkable and remarkably mysterious figure addressed as Wisdom, who is generally conceived of as feminine (e.g., Sophia) and yet has undeniable connections with the attributes of the Second Person of the Christian Trinity, conceived of as masculine. I would argue that only in the person of a Jesus of Nazareth, TRUE man, could the feminine virtues of Wisdom be propagated successfully, which means so as to persuade and appeal to all human beings, including men. Further, I maintain that that is obviously still true today. In a Church that not only values and teaches the feminine virtues, which necessarily it must, but is led by women, there must always be an extreme danger of condoning licentiousness, not because one of the feminine virtues is unconditional love, the author of which is not a respecter of persons, but rather because of unstinting acceptance of those sinning whether or not they have repented or intend to repent. When Jesus forgave the Woman at the Well, a love that knows no sexual boundaries forgave her, true, but it was the man in Jesus who said "Go and sin no more."
So we see in Churches that have ordained women, an inexorable toleration for and spread of sexual license, which is unappeasable, brooks no real restraint, and cannot be separated from the fact that sex is far more important to women than it is to men. The feminine virtue of acceptance of no matter what, rooted, one supposes, in the so-called maternal instinct to protect and nurture offspring, will sooner tolerate nearly any behavior that does not draw blood or that provides satisfaction than restrain it. Such a standard is quite easy for anyone, man or woman, to adopt as a guide to morals. Yet it is, properly considered, too similar to the law of the jungle, to the same maxims, as it were, that guide the beasts in their activities: avoiding harm and achieving satisfaction. Human beings, on the other had, need conviction that some things are forbidden and not accepted even when they fail to draw blood or frustrate some desire. It is a father's role to step in at such times, not a mother's. A church run by women would not go off the rails in the manner I am proposing it would all at once; but it will surely happen. We need look no further than the experience of mainline Protestantism
Predicting on the basis of gender alone who will exhibit the necessarily fatherly virtues is quite difficult, as they are found in both men and women. At the same time that reality in and of itself is not a sufficient reason to recommend ordaining women. The anthropological and theological groundings for preferring a male hierarchy is there, the reasons advanced for amending the preference from the ostensibly democratic to the egalitarian notwithstanding.
Absent an exclusively male hierarchy specifically including an all-male presbyterate, we shall have a Church the HIGHEST values of which are nurturing and protection. Now what is wrong with that, one asks? Just this, such values are, one, NOT the primary values for men and, two, not the highest values to which we should aspire (the two are not unrelated). Just as marriage is a civilizing force on innate and potentially obnoxious male instincts of aggression and dominance, so too do Holy Orders, when a man receives and exercises them, can inspire and educate ALL men that Christianity is for them as well, despite its very feminizing tendencies and without their having to become themselves feminized in some manner that will be detrimental not only to themselves but to society in general.
Turning to the theological side of the question, in the Old Testament we meet the remarkable and remarkably mysterious figure addressed as Wisdom, who is generally conceived of as feminine (e.g., Sophia) and yet has undeniable connections with the attributes of the Second Person of the Christian Trinity, conceived of as masculine. I would argue that only in the person of a Jesus of Nazareth, TRUE man, could the feminine virtues of Wisdom be propagated successfully, which means so as to persuade and appeal to all human beings, including men. Further, I maintain that that is obviously still true today. In a Church that not only values and teaches the feminine virtues, which necessarily it must, but is led by women, there must always be an extreme danger of condoning licentiousness, not because one of the feminine virtues is unconditional love, the author of which is not a respecter of persons, but rather because of unstinting acceptance of those sinning whether or not they have repented or intend to repent. When Jesus forgave the Woman at the Well, a love that knows no sexual boundaries forgave her, true, but it was the man in Jesus who said "Go and sin no more."
So we see in Churches that have ordained women, an inexorable toleration for and spread of sexual license, which is unappeasable, brooks no real restraint, and cannot be separated from the fact that sex is far more important to women than it is to men. The feminine virtue of acceptance of no matter what, rooted, one supposes, in the so-called maternal instinct to protect and nurture offspring, will sooner tolerate nearly any behavior that does not draw blood or that provides satisfaction than restrain it. Such a standard is quite easy for anyone, man or woman, to adopt as a guide to morals. Yet it is, properly considered, too similar to the law of the jungle, to the same maxims, as it were, that guide the beasts in their activities: avoiding harm and achieving satisfaction. Human beings, on the other had, need conviction that some things are forbidden and not accepted even when they fail to draw blood or frustrate some desire. It is a father's role to step in at such times, not a mother's. A church run by women would not go off the rails in the manner I am proposing it would all at once; but it will surely happen. We need look no further than the experience of mainline Protestantism
Predicting on the basis of gender alone who will exhibit the necessarily fatherly virtues is quite difficult, as they are found in both men and women. At the same time that reality in and of itself is not a sufficient reason to recommend ordaining women. The anthropological and theological groundings for preferring a male hierarchy is there, the reasons advanced for amending the preference from the ostensibly democratic to the egalitarian notwithstanding.
12.4.2012 | 11:46am
Cbalducc says:
The National Catholic Reporter supporting the ordination of women as priests is a schocking as me having two cups of coffee with my breakfast.
12.4.2012 | 11:56am
Tiber Crosser says:
I wish those who are pushing for this so hard in the Catholic Church would look at its outcome in other churches.
Is there a denomination that has gone the route of Women's Ordination that
is experiencing real and vital growth in spiritually and numerically?
Is there a denomination that has gone the route of Women's Ordination that has held the line of orthodoxy on issues such as abortion and same sex unions?
Ask WO supporters to get back on this Gamaliel test.
Insanity, as they say, is the belief that one can do the same thing the same way and achieve a different outcome.
Is there a denomination that has gone the route of Women's Ordination that
is experiencing real and vital growth in spiritually and numerically?
Is there a denomination that has gone the route of Women's Ordination that has held the line of orthodoxy on issues such as abortion and same sex unions?
Ask WO supporters to get back on this Gamaliel test.
Insanity, as they say, is the belief that one can do the same thing the same way and achieve a different outcome.
12.4.2012 | 12:05pm
A Reader says:
"... No one should ... be startled to read in the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" from the Second Vatican Council that the common priesthood of all the faithful and the ordained, hierarchial priesthood differ not only in degree, but also in essence (essentia et non gradu tantum)."
"The holiness of the priesthood is a gratuitous gift from God, undeserved and truly incomparable. It has the passive quality of being something granted by God to a man despite his unworthiness. Yet the man is indeed transformed. He received an indelible character and the grace to live the life that has been granted to him. The priest is patterned after, configured to (configuratur) Christ as priest. ... It is no longer he who lives, but Christ who lives in him. ...the priest is then to become fully that which he is."
"Thus, when they [the priests] fail the sacred trust, when they betray their sacral character as a total offering to God, the price exacted is often excruciating, not only for the priest but for the faithful as well."
Excerpt from "The Catholic Priest as Moral Teacher and Guide": "The Sacral Character of the Priest as the Foundaion for His Moral Life and Teaching" by Dr. John M. Haas
"The holiness of the priesthood is a gratuitous gift from God, undeserved and truly incomparable. It has the passive quality of being something granted by God to a man despite his unworthiness. Yet the man is indeed transformed. He received an indelible character and the grace to live the life that has been granted to him. The priest is patterned after, configured to (configuratur) Christ as priest. ... It is no longer he who lives, but Christ who lives in him. ...the priest is then to become fully that which he is."
"Thus, when they [the priests] fail the sacred trust, when they betray their sacral character as a total offering to God, the price exacted is often excruciating, not only for the priest but for the faithful as well."
Excerpt from "The Catholic Priest as Moral Teacher and Guide": "The Sacral Character of the Priest as the Foundaion for His Moral Life and Teaching" by Dr. John M. Haas
12.4.2012 | 12:13pm
JDD says:
Rick,
I think there is confusion in the way the word "priesthood" is used. In Catholicism, we do believe in the priesthood of all believers, but not in the sacramental priesthood of all believers. I hope this is useful, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1547:
The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially. In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders." [CCC 1547]
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a6.htm
We believe that only a priest may administer a *Sacrament* of healing, but not that only a priest can pray for someone for healing, and certainly not that healing can *only* come through a priest. I do believe that there is a superabundance of grace that God can give to me through that Sacrament. James is pretty clear: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord..." [James 5:14] There are certain events that appear to have happened in the early church where James instructs the people to call for not just anybody, but the elders. Is this an exclusive franchise on grace, limiting God? I'm glad you stifled your laugh at the priest; he might have been actually trying to gently use an opportunity for teaching, possibly in order to correct some misunderstandings elsewhere in the community of which you were not aware, and may not have meant what you think he meant.
I think there is confusion in the way the word "priesthood" is used. In Catholicism, we do believe in the priesthood of all believers, but not in the sacramental priesthood of all believers. I hope this is useful, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1547:
The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially. In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders." [CCC 1547]
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a6.htm
We believe that only a priest may administer a *Sacrament* of healing, but not that only a priest can pray for someone for healing, and certainly not that healing can *only* come through a priest. I do believe that there is a superabundance of grace that God can give to me through that Sacrament. James is pretty clear: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord..." [James 5:14] There are certain events that appear to have happened in the early church where James instructs the people to call for not just anybody, but the elders. Is this an exclusive franchise on grace, limiting God? I'm glad you stifled your laugh at the priest; he might have been actually trying to gently use an opportunity for teaching, possibly in order to correct some misunderstandings elsewhere in the community of which you were not aware, and may not have meant what you think he meant.
12.4.2012 | 12:23pm
R.C. says:
It's quite simple.
Ideas have consequences.
But those consequences don't reveal themselves, sometimes, for hundreds of years.
The consequence of female ordination is the denigration of the value of female-ness or male-ness as a beautiful thing which God created for our good, and that the distinctiveness of each is a reflection of God's plan which necessarily involves included and excluded roles for each gender (along with some inclusions and exclusions which are NOT hard and fast, and some roles in which there is perfect parity).
But it takes hundreds of years, sometimes, before one realizes that female ordination leads to sexual confusion in society, the denial of Christian sexual morality, the denial of the Trinity, and the like; and that these denials naturally undermine the moral and doctrinal authority of anyone who has taught Christian sexual morality and doctrine; and that includes the men whose authority we trusted in the early councils and the canonization of Scripture, which undermines the authority of the Bible.
In short, women's ordination is an idea, the implications of which lead necessarily to the conclusion that we, in the 21st century, cannot possibly have any way to know what the real teachings of Jesus are and were. "Christianity" becomes a word for "something that we can't know what it is." This produces a split culture of some people practicing Therapeutic Deism under the banner of "Christianity," other people becoming functional atheists with a nominal Christian identity, and the remaining people -- those most predisposed to find fault with the hypocrisy of the first two groups -- being loud-and-proud atheists.
Now in a perfectly logical society -- a society of Vulcans, say -- everyone would see the implications of every idea instantaneously. Once an idea was adopted, they would immediately work out all the implied conclusions and implement them visibly, right away.
Thus in a perfectly logical society, Christians would have a degree of error-checking. They could say, for five minutes: "Let's adopt women's ordination. WHOA! Unholy crap, lookkit that! The whole country just spontaneously became a mix of declared atheism, functional atheism, and theologically shallow prosperity gospel adherents. Gee, THAT can't be right. Let's flip the switch back to all-male clergy."
But because it takes time for attitudes to shift into complete coherence with a new zeitgeist, we don't get the benefit of such error-correcting feedback. Instead, by the time the consequences of an idea are entirely played-out, two or three generations have passed who are accustomed to the "new normal" and who can't even recall the "old normal." This largely eliminates their ability to perceive that anything is wrong.
Anyway, it is not as if we haven't seen this already. For, it turns out that the accepting of contracepted sex as morally permissible for Christians has largely the same impact as the acceptance of women's ordination!
Now, the tide is turning on that topic: Not in popular culture where it is as firmly planted as Moloch among the Carthaginians, but among serious Christians who increasingly see the connection between the trio of abortion, homosexuality, and divorce, and the moral error that it's okay for married couples to have sex while intentionally making that sex sterile. The idea was always an error, but the error was not readily apparent until all its consequent implications worked their way through society.
A hundred years from now we may manage to reverse that error. But in the meantime, let's not become invested in a parallel error which will have the same impact on the culture. Let's not adopt women's ordination just in the very century that we begin repenting of valuing sterility over fruitfulness and teleologically perverse pleasures over teleological integrity. Let's not intentionally give ourselves lung cancer just when we're finally discovering the root cause of our heart disease.
Ideas have consequences.
But those consequences don't reveal themselves, sometimes, for hundreds of years.
The consequence of female ordination is the denigration of the value of female-ness or male-ness as a beautiful thing which God created for our good, and that the distinctiveness of each is a reflection of God's plan which necessarily involves included and excluded roles for each gender (along with some inclusions and exclusions which are NOT hard and fast, and some roles in which there is perfect parity).
But it takes hundreds of years, sometimes, before one realizes that female ordination leads to sexual confusion in society, the denial of Christian sexual morality, the denial of the Trinity, and the like; and that these denials naturally undermine the moral and doctrinal authority of anyone who has taught Christian sexual morality and doctrine; and that includes the men whose authority we trusted in the early councils and the canonization of Scripture, which undermines the authority of the Bible.
In short, women's ordination is an idea, the implications of which lead necessarily to the conclusion that we, in the 21st century, cannot possibly have any way to know what the real teachings of Jesus are and were. "Christianity" becomes a word for "something that we can't know what it is." This produces a split culture of some people practicing Therapeutic Deism under the banner of "Christianity," other people becoming functional atheists with a nominal Christian identity, and the remaining people -- those most predisposed to find fault with the hypocrisy of the first two groups -- being loud-and-proud atheists.
Now in a perfectly logical society -- a society of Vulcans, say -- everyone would see the implications of every idea instantaneously. Once an idea was adopted, they would immediately work out all the implied conclusions and implement them visibly, right away.
Thus in a perfectly logical society, Christians would have a degree of error-checking. They could say, for five minutes: "Let's adopt women's ordination. WHOA! Unholy crap, lookkit that! The whole country just spontaneously became a mix of declared atheism, functional atheism, and theologically shallow prosperity gospel adherents. Gee, THAT can't be right. Let's flip the switch back to all-male clergy."
But because it takes time for attitudes to shift into complete coherence with a new zeitgeist, we don't get the benefit of such error-correcting feedback. Instead, by the time the consequences of an idea are entirely played-out, two or three generations have passed who are accustomed to the "new normal" and who can't even recall the "old normal." This largely eliminates their ability to perceive that anything is wrong.
Anyway, it is not as if we haven't seen this already. For, it turns out that the accepting of contracepted sex as morally permissible for Christians has largely the same impact as the acceptance of women's ordination!
Now, the tide is turning on that topic: Not in popular culture where it is as firmly planted as Moloch among the Carthaginians, but among serious Christians who increasingly see the connection between the trio of abortion, homosexuality, and divorce, and the moral error that it's okay for married couples to have sex while intentionally making that sex sterile. The idea was always an error, but the error was not readily apparent until all its consequent implications worked their way through society.
A hundred years from now we may manage to reverse that error. But in the meantime, let's not become invested in a parallel error which will have the same impact on the culture. Let's not adopt women's ordination just in the very century that we begin repenting of valuing sterility over fruitfulness and teleologically perverse pleasures over teleological integrity. Let's not intentionally give ourselves lung cancer just when we're finally discovering the root cause of our heart disease.
12.4.2012 | 12:34pm
Paul says:
Another fine article, Elizabeth. The only downside is that it brings the NCR editorial to people's attention at all. No one I know ever reads that rag, given that their leanings are well known. Being shocked by their pronouncements is like being shocked by God not showing up in the Democratic Party platform.
12.4.2012 | 12:56pm
patricksarsfield says:
Ever see what happens when a church office is opened to women? Are we seeing fewer and fewer males in lectoring, EM and altar server positions now that women can serve? That has been my observation, although I have to admit it is not a "statistically valid" observation, just "anecdotal."
But let's look at the possibility of going along with opening the office of priest to women on the grounds of "equality." Let me just pose a few questions: If women will serve as EMs and lectors and priests/deacons/bishops, would guys just let them have it and just skip the whole church thing entirely, kinda like they are increasingly opting out of family membership?
Would that be bad? Are we better off without male domination of families? Are women better off taking over the roles both of men and women in marriages?
Why are men even needed in a church if they don't want to be there, given the fungibility of male and female in a world that increasingly judges any sexual distinctions to be irrelevant. [Indeed, I recently read an article that suggests that--while most women don't want combat duty--they should be allowed into combat units if they choose to do so].
Would the Church be better off if most of the men went away, as they have gone away in the 40%+ of parenting situations where women are raising children on their own (not gay guys, of course, who should be encouraged to join under the same equality principle)?
But let's look at the possibility of going along with opening the office of priest to women on the grounds of "equality." Let me just pose a few questions: If women will serve as EMs and lectors and priests/deacons/bishops, would guys just let them have it and just skip the whole church thing entirely, kinda like they are increasingly opting out of family membership?
Would that be bad? Are we better off without male domination of families? Are women better off taking over the roles both of men and women in marriages?
Why are men even needed in a church if they don't want to be there, given the fungibility of male and female in a world that increasingly judges any sexual distinctions to be irrelevant. [Indeed, I recently read an article that suggests that--while most women don't want combat duty--they should be allowed into combat units if they choose to do so].
Would the Church be better off if most of the men went away, as they have gone away in the 40%+ of parenting situations where women are raising children on their own (not gay guys, of course, who should be encouraged to join under the same equality principle)?
12.4.2012 | 12:57pm
Wendell Clanton says:
The NCR is exploiting the topic at hand in an attempt to further its own goal of maintaining profitability. It is merely trying to gain readership by "questioning authority", issuing a call-to-arms that was a hallmark of the anti-authority wingnuts of yesteryear, which makes the present action little more than an annoyance raised by hippies-to-be-pitied.
With the exception of Mr. John Allen, the NCR is a cadre of third rate journalists whose raison d'être is a tired radicalism that relies on obfuscation, hyperbole and demonization of their opponents to bolster the weak arguments of a tiny constituency.
The NCR is fast becoming irrelevant. The current attempt to provoke interest in their rag of a newspaper is that of a desperate organization which likely will not survive the present decade. With access to information services that present facts instead of editorial spin, i.e., revisionist history, the Catholic readership is becoming less susceptible to the tired rhetoric of these and other self-aggrandizing heretics.
With the exception of Mr. John Allen, the NCR is a cadre of third rate journalists whose raison d'être is a tired radicalism that relies on obfuscation, hyperbole and demonization of their opponents to bolster the weak arguments of a tiny constituency.
The NCR is fast becoming irrelevant. The current attempt to provoke interest in their rag of a newspaper is that of a desperate organization which likely will not survive the present decade. With access to information services that present facts instead of editorial spin, i.e., revisionist history, the Catholic readership is becoming less susceptible to the tired rhetoric of these and other self-aggrandizing heretics.
12.4.2012 | 1:01pm
Ben says:
In Number 16 some rebelled against the Priesthood being restricted to Aaron's line.
16:1 And behold Core the son of Isaar, the son of Caath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiron the sons of Eliab, and Hon the son of Pheleth of the children of Ruben,
16:2 Rose up against Moses, and with them two hundred and fifty others of the children of Israel, leading men of the synagogue, and who in the time of assembly were called by name.
16:3 And when they had stood up against Moses and Aaron, they said: Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?
Some things never change
16:1 And behold Core the son of Isaar, the son of Caath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiron the sons of Eliab, and Hon the son of Pheleth of the children of Ruben,
16:2 Rose up against Moses, and with them two hundred and fifty others of the children of Israel, leading men of the synagogue, and who in the time of assembly were called by name.
16:3 And when they had stood up against Moses and Aaron, they said: Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?
Some things never change
12.4.2012 | 1:06pm
David Philippart says:
You misread the editorial's argument and trivialize it, but you do not answer it in a way that invites taking you seriously. You set up a straw man: "The overbearing men of Rome, most particularly Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, are depicted as keeping the good people down and—in this case—suppressing the will of the Holy Spirit. The Reporter does not explicitly make that last charge." Of course it doesn't. Because it is engaging in a serious and thoughtful argument, not asking glibly "When-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife?" type questions like you do here. The editorial does NOT say that everyone should be a priest whenever anyone feels like it. Quoting Roy Bourgeouis, the editorial argues that one's female gender alone does not prevent God from calling her to ordained ministry. It doesn't seek to address the issue of how the Church vets those who experience a call from God for orders. This can and should be debated, not smugly dismissed with "golly." Light, not snark, is called for here.
12.4.2012 | 1:10pm
Mark says:
"If corporeal anatomy is completely unconnected to a human being’s essential nature [...]"
For me, this is the crux of the situation. Of course anatomy informs who we are as people and expresses something important about "a human being's essential nature." However, if we emphasize the biological differences between men and women in such a way that we eventually affirm a fundamental difference in the essential human nature of a man and the essential human nature of a woman, then we're well on the way to affirming the existence of two essential human natures, one male and one female. The theological implications of such an affirmation are troubling, to say the least: If male-human-nature is fundamentally different from female-human-nature, then Our Lord cannot be said to have redeemed women because Our Lord clearly assumed a male-human-nature only and we know that what is not assumed is not redeemed.
If what prevents women from being priests is, essentially, that Christ's male-human-nature was definitively important to his ministry and the work of atonement in such a way that only men can now act in persona Christi, then women have no share in Christ's atonement--i.e., it doesn't apply to them.
For me, this is the crux of the situation. Of course anatomy informs who we are as people and expresses something important about "a human being's essential nature." However, if we emphasize the biological differences between men and women in such a way that we eventually affirm a fundamental difference in the essential human nature of a man and the essential human nature of a woman, then we're well on the way to affirming the existence of two essential human natures, one male and one female. The theological implications of such an affirmation are troubling, to say the least: If male-human-nature is fundamentally different from female-human-nature, then Our Lord cannot be said to have redeemed women because Our Lord clearly assumed a male-human-nature only and we know that what is not assumed is not redeemed.
If what prevents women from being priests is, essentially, that Christ's male-human-nature was definitively important to his ministry and the work of atonement in such a way that only men can now act in persona Christi, then women have no share in Christ's atonement--i.e., it doesn't apply to them.
12.4.2012 | 1:14pm
Uomo senzanome says:
Joe sansonese, I was reading along not necessarily disagreeing with you about a number of things, and then I saw this: "toleration and spread of sexual license, which is unappeasable, brooks no real restraint, and that cannot be separated from the fact that sex is far more important to women than to men." Surely you cannot mean that women *desire* sex *qua sex* more than men do? The *import* of sex, that is to say the depth and intensity of *Meaning* attached to a particular act of sex, may be greater to many women than to men, but only because a woman may associate love and sex more closely and thereby impart the meaning of love to sex which is not actually motivated thereby (on the part of the man). But the kind of "importance" of sex that motivates "toleration and spread of sexual license, which is unappeasable [and] brooks no real restraint" - surely that is an importance of the sort felt and promoted more by men to serve their selfish desires for sexual pleasure divorced from the responsibilities of love?
In my observation, it is women religious who more easily accept and live happily under a rule of perpetual chastity than men. How can this be if sex is more import to women?
And if this point falls, what happens to the rest of your argument?
In my observation, it is women religious who more easily accept and live happily under a rule of perpetual chastity than men. How can this be if sex is more import to women?
And if this point falls, what happens to the rest of your argument?
12.4.2012 | 1:31pm
Mack says:
Elizabeth is simply repeating a teaching of the Church. If the Church were to change its teachings on ordination, that would be proof that the Church is not the truth and never has been. To paraphrase Chesterton, something that is true on Tuesday is also true on Wednesday, and to prefer Wednesday simply because it is not Tuesday is illogical.
The staff of the National Reporter are free to believe in whatever they wish -- fairies, elves, Klingons -- but if they are honest men and women they will now drop "Catholic" from their title.
The staff of the National Reporter are free to believe in whatever they wish -- fairies, elves, Klingons -- but if they are honest men and women they will now drop "Catholic" from their title.
12.4.2012 | 1:47pm
The Mrs. says:
Can we leave the men something? Do they get nothing that only they can be called to do?
There are thousands of Christian churches and denominations. Don't like it? Go start your ideal if you really have conviction!
It's as ridiculous as the boy Scouts attacks. Start your own! Unless your intent really is to corrupt, destroy or just get yourself in charge of some loot! If that is indeed the case, well then I guess, you'll carry on.
There are thousands of Christian churches and denominations. Don't like it? Go start your ideal if you really have conviction!
It's as ridiculous as the boy Scouts attacks. Start your own! Unless your intent really is to corrupt, destroy or just get yourself in charge of some loot! If that is indeed the case, well then I guess, you'll carry on.
12.4.2012 | 1:51pm
Andrew Lang says:
The rules against married clergy do not go back to apostolic times. What is God's will on that issue? If we truly know it now, then we didn't know it then. Even accepting the magisterial tradition and argument against the ordination of female priests, there is a non-relativistic case to be made for ordination of women into at least the permanent diaconate, allowing them to read the gospel during mass, give homilies, or preside at weddings and funerals. As for the priesthood, priests are men because Christ was a man and the the priest "stands in" for Christ, who gives His body for our salvation. But is it impossible to imagine a "priestly" role for women who would "stand in" for the Virgin Mary, she who physically provided the flesh of which our savior was formed? It was something Bishop Sheen wrote that put the idea, unintentionally I'm sure, into my head. I wonder where the Spirit might lead us if we open our hearts.
12.4.2012 | 2:02pm
gedda fan says:
JPII put this item to bed, for all faithful children of the church in his exhortation
""Ordinatio Sacerdotalis"" where in he uses the very clear formula telling the whole church, in his role as Peters successor, on this item of faith and church discipline neither He nor any pope could change what Christ has ordained - period.
there is no higher review- issue decided. game over - time to move on , all you Peter Paul and Mary fans - time to move on
""Ordinatio Sacerdotalis"" where in he uses the very clear formula telling the whole church, in his role as Peters successor, on this item of faith and church discipline neither He nor any pope could change what Christ has ordained - period.
there is no higher review- issue decided. game over - time to move on , all you Peter Paul and Mary fans - time to move on
12.4.2012 | 2:08pm
David P says:
Let married men become Priests before doing this.
Let me know where to signup when this happens!!
Let me know where to signup when this happens!!
12.4.2012 | 2:15pm
greggo says:
First you build a straw man. Then you admit he's a straw man. Then you base your arguement on the straw man any way.
"To suppress the will of the Holy Spirit—to suppress the will of God—is a wicked thing. To charge the Church with doing so is to make a serious accusation of wickedness—one bound to have repercussions lasting beyond the heat of a moment. It is to label the Church as antichrist. So the Reporter does not do it"
Is it wicked to imply someone is accusing the church of suppressing the Spirit ? Is not his a serious accusation of wickedness? Ad infinitum
"To suppress the will of the Holy Spirit—to suppress the will of God—is a wicked thing. To charge the Church with doing so is to make a serious accusation of wickedness—one bound to have repercussions lasting beyond the heat of a moment. It is to label the Church as antichrist. So the Reporter does not do it"
Is it wicked to imply someone is accusing the church of suppressing the Spirit ? Is not his a serious accusation of wickedness? Ad infinitum
12.4.2012 | 2:33pm
Karyn says:
I think it's funny that people use words like " the world" and "the Church", but really mean the Church in America. Or, posdibly, the Church in Europe. I wonder what Catholics in South America, Africa, and the Eastern rites, among others?
12.4.2012 | 3:21pm
John says:
Check out a free and universal priesthood at The Young Rite which carries on the Tradition of the Liberal Catholic Church in our modern world while celebrating the great signs of the reality of God through the sacramental life. Both men and women are allowed to enter holy priesthood.
12.4.2012 | 3:38pm
Joe Sansonese says:
Uomo senzanome, you are correct that the words "toleration and spread of sexual license, which is unappeasable, brooks no real restraint, and that cannot be separated from the fact that sex is far more important to women than to men" misleading; and I realized as much at the time I wrote it. I struggled for an adjective and came up with "far more important [to women]," clumsily thinking that it avoided the implication that you have discerned in it. By "important" I meant that for women sex and love are often (though not exclusively) inextricable one from the other. As a practical matter, women are far more likely, I believe, to take the word of another that licentiousness is love and so tolerate a vice in the guise of a virtue, to be more accepting and understanding, in other words, where line drawing and reproof are called for by a pastor in the interests of all concerned, which obviously is the principle thrust of the argument I present and, I think, is not affected by the infelicity of my prose in this instance.
At the same time and without wishing to unduly widen an already very broad discussion, the attitudes and practices of women religious, who are not typical women, to one aside, Freud was on to something when he "discovered" an inclination to participate in the "polymorphously perverse" as more in evidence in women than men (at least I think it was Freud who made the observation). It really is the obverse of the coin one side of which notes that men primarily seek mere animal release in orgasm, whereas women look for deeper satisfactions in the exact same experience, which makes them more susceptible to condoning rather than condemning the sin while forgiving the sinner and to discern in the dysfunctional outcomes of sexual license more that is to be pitied than is perhaps the case. The thought that another person, for example a woman unhappily pregnant, should face suffering in carrying a fetus to term, may trump every other consideration of morality even in cases where the woman in such a plight may have used and may again be using abortion as a form of birth control.
Another way to look at the matter is that because Christianity does strive to protect the weak and the helpless and has so since its appearance in the Mediterranean world of the First Century, the Christian Church has always possessed a strong appeal to women who, it's certainly arguable, throughout history have been dominated to the point of oppression by men. Given the mores and laws of the Roman Empire, there is probably no epoch that more supports whatever truth is in that notion than the First Century. Attracting women into the Church was then not so difficult a thing, and there are clear indications of that in the New Testament, particularly the Epistles of Paul. Nowhere else in ancient literature, I'd wager, do we learn of the institutional participation of women, with men, on anything like the scale that they appear to do in the Gospels. The question is not understanding why women would be Christians. As I've pointed out, Christian openness to womanly values certainly irked Nietzsche, who famously advised: "You go to the woman? Do not forget your whip!" Christ's being a man was absolutely necessary if such a transvaluation of values, if you'll forgive further Nietzsche talk, were to bend the wills of men away from brutality and domination. Men and women have not changed, in the sense of evolved, very much, if at all, as human beings since then.
At the same time and without wishing to unduly widen an already very broad discussion, the attitudes and practices of women religious, who are not typical women, to one aside, Freud was on to something when he "discovered" an inclination to participate in the "polymorphously perverse" as more in evidence in women than men (at least I think it was Freud who made the observation). It really is the obverse of the coin one side of which notes that men primarily seek mere animal release in orgasm, whereas women look for deeper satisfactions in the exact same experience, which makes them more susceptible to condoning rather than condemning the sin while forgiving the sinner and to discern in the dysfunctional outcomes of sexual license more that is to be pitied than is perhaps the case. The thought that another person, for example a woman unhappily pregnant, should face suffering in carrying a fetus to term, may trump every other consideration of morality even in cases where the woman in such a plight may have used and may again be using abortion as a form of birth control.
Another way to look at the matter is that because Christianity does strive to protect the weak and the helpless and has so since its appearance in the Mediterranean world of the First Century, the Christian Church has always possessed a strong appeal to women who, it's certainly arguable, throughout history have been dominated to the point of oppression by men. Given the mores and laws of the Roman Empire, there is probably no epoch that more supports whatever truth is in that notion than the First Century. Attracting women into the Church was then not so difficult a thing, and there are clear indications of that in the New Testament, particularly the Epistles of Paul. Nowhere else in ancient literature, I'd wager, do we learn of the institutional participation of women, with men, on anything like the scale that they appear to do in the Gospels. The question is not understanding why women would be Christians. As I've pointed out, Christian openness to womanly values certainly irked Nietzsche, who famously advised: "You go to the woman? Do not forget your whip!" Christ's being a man was absolutely necessary if such a transvaluation of values, if you'll forgive further Nietzsche talk, were to bend the wills of men away from brutality and domination. Men and women have not changed, in the sense of evolved, very much, if at all, as human beings since then.
12.4.2012 | 3:54pm
Aaron Rasmussen says:
Not being a Catholic, I admit that I am a bit confused by this essay. It seems to blow the disagreement out of proportion.
Does any variation in perspective with regard to a single Catholic teaching really amount to an allegation that the church is the antichrist? So different people have different ideas of what the Holy Spirit intends for us - so what? Don't people disagree about all kinds of things? Shoot, I'm a protestant and even I don't think the Catholic Church is the antichrist. If other faiths can disagree with Catholicism without deeming it the antichrist, why can't good Catholics disagree without making such a deranged leap.
I suspect it is the defenders of the tradition that wish to make such a dramatic distinction because it prevents any kind of reasoned discussion of the issue. It creates a false choice: "If you are correct then the church is the antichrist!" Gee whiz, are those really the only two options? Does that attempt to address the substance of the question?
And while we are on substance, what is it about "female-ness" that prevents women from being priests? I get that there are real differences between the sexes. But not all differences are disqualifying. What quality must priests possess that women lack? Which priestly duty is genital-dependent? Spell it out for me. I really don't know.
Last, the statement that "tradition is not authority" seems a bit ridiculous. I doubt that the NCR would say that. Rather, tradition is one source of authority, but not the only source of authority. Traditions should not be abandoned or set aside lightly, but they are not totally impervious to human error. But to even entertain the notion that some tradition or another may be fallible - is it really that wrong?
Does any variation in perspective with regard to a single Catholic teaching really amount to an allegation that the church is the antichrist? So different people have different ideas of what the Holy Spirit intends for us - so what? Don't people disagree about all kinds of things? Shoot, I'm a protestant and even I don't think the Catholic Church is the antichrist. If other faiths can disagree with Catholicism without deeming it the antichrist, why can't good Catholics disagree without making such a deranged leap.
I suspect it is the defenders of the tradition that wish to make such a dramatic distinction because it prevents any kind of reasoned discussion of the issue. It creates a false choice: "If you are correct then the church is the antichrist!" Gee whiz, are those really the only two options? Does that attempt to address the substance of the question?
And while we are on substance, what is it about "female-ness" that prevents women from being priests? I get that there are real differences between the sexes. But not all differences are disqualifying. What quality must priests possess that women lack? Which priestly duty is genital-dependent? Spell it out for me. I really don't know.
Last, the statement that "tradition is not authority" seems a bit ridiculous. I doubt that the NCR would say that. Rather, tradition is one source of authority, but not the only source of authority. Traditions should not be abandoned or set aside lightly, but they are not totally impervious to human error. But to even entertain the notion that some tradition or another may be fallible - is it really that wrong?
12.4.2012 | 3:58pm
Anglican Reader says:
@Tiber Crosser well most Pentecostals globally believe in the ordination of women and they have been "experiencing real and vital growth in spiritually and numerically" ways and they have also "held the line of orthodoxy on issues such as abortion and same sex unions".
There have even been calls from within the Roman church to learn from the Pentecostal church: http://www.catholicnews-tt.net/v2005/archives/0207/sun25/viewpoint_2.htm
There have even been calls from within the Roman church to learn from the Pentecostal church: http://www.catholicnews-tt.net/v2005/archives/0207/sun25/viewpoint_2.htm
12.4.2012 | 4:24pm
Adam Baum says:
@David P
"Let married men become Priests before doing this.
Let me know where to signup when this happens!!"
If you are really that dedicated to serving the Church, why not consider the Permanent Diaconate?
@Wendell Clanton
"The NCR is exploiting the topic at hand in an attempt to further its own goal of maintaining profitability. "
Nailed it. Money doesn't talk, it screams.
"Let married men become Priests before doing this.
Let me know where to signup when this happens!!"
If you are really that dedicated to serving the Church, why not consider the Permanent Diaconate?
@Wendell Clanton
"The NCR is exploiting the topic at hand in an attempt to further its own goal of maintaining profitability. "
Nailed it. Money doesn't talk, it screams.
12.4.2012 | 4:34pm
William Tighe says:
Bill Bannon wrote:
"But on this one issue of women priests, why doesn't Pope Benedict use ex cathedra and be done with it."
Since, on the one hand, the teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis about WO is binding and (to use the technical term) "irreformable" (unalterable) but since, on the other hand, it is increasingly contested, I will presume to opine that this is an "issue" urgently requiring an ex cathedra definition, which would have the effect, most likely, of causing a much-to-be-desired departure from the Church (whether quietly to other "ecclesial communities" like the Episcopal Church [which has substituted the Zeitgeist for the Holy Ghost in its decision-making] or by causing s schism) on the part of WO advocates and zealots. The sooner the better, I say!
Well, there is actually a second, and related, matter that needs resolving: the purported ordination of women to "the diaconate." Put differently, the motu proprio *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis* needs to be complemented by *Ordinatio Diaconalis.*
It is my view that women can no more be otdained to "the diaconate" than to the priesthood and episcopate. Put differently, the "deaconesses" that were found in some regions of the Early Church (not universally, e.g., the Church of Rome never, ever had deaconesses) were not deacons. I could expand further on this issue, but I will content myself for the present by referring interested readers to two books, both of them available in English translations from Ignatius Press. The first one is *Deaconesses: A Historical Study* by Aime-Georges Martimort (1986); the second one id *Priesthood and Diaconate* by Gerhard Ludwig Muller (2002). Martimort was one of the greatest French Patristic scholars of the 20th Century; Muller was recently made Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
"But on this one issue of women priests, why doesn't Pope Benedict use ex cathedra and be done with it."
Since, on the one hand, the teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis about WO is binding and (to use the technical term) "irreformable" (unalterable) but since, on the other hand, it is increasingly contested, I will presume to opine that this is an "issue" urgently requiring an ex cathedra definition, which would have the effect, most likely, of causing a much-to-be-desired departure from the Church (whether quietly to other "ecclesial communities" like the Episcopal Church [which has substituted the Zeitgeist for the Holy Ghost in its decision-making] or by causing s schism) on the part of WO advocates and zealots. The sooner the better, I say!
Well, there is actually a second, and related, matter that needs resolving: the purported ordination of women to "the diaconate." Put differently, the motu proprio *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis* needs to be complemented by *Ordinatio Diaconalis.*
It is my view that women can no more be otdained to "the diaconate" than to the priesthood and episcopate. Put differently, the "deaconesses" that were found in some regions of the Early Church (not universally, e.g., the Church of Rome never, ever had deaconesses) were not deacons. I could expand further on this issue, but I will content myself for the present by referring interested readers to two books, both of them available in English translations from Ignatius Press. The first one is *Deaconesses: A Historical Study* by Aime-Georges Martimort (1986); the second one id *Priesthood and Diaconate* by Gerhard Ludwig Muller (2002). Martimort was one of the greatest French Patristic scholars of the 20th Century; Muller was recently made Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
12.4.2012 | 4:53pm
Bibbit says:
Anglican Reader - I, for a few years, attended one of those growing sects. And I can tell you that one thing they also do over time is splinter and splinter and splinter and splinter. It's what they do because just about everybody is a pope.
I always look at it from one of the views the author touched on, the view that God had a reason for making us man and woman. Why can't people accept that? Do they really think the early Church didn't ordain women because of cultural concerns? Which means they were willing to face a horrible death for believing in Christ but not willing to face being given a hard time for ordaining women? To me that's just plain illogical.
I always look at it from one of the views the author touched on, the view that God had a reason for making us man and woman. Why can't people accept that? Do they really think the early Church didn't ordain women because of cultural concerns? Which means they were willing to face a horrible death for believing in Christ but not willing to face being given a hard time for ordaining women? To me that's just plain illogical.
12.4.2012 | 4:55pm
Jerry Beckett says:
Anglican Reader:
The article you linked advocates baptism in the Holy Spirit and biblical preaching as aspects of Pentacostalism that the Church should return to. It does not advocate nor address ordination of women in any way, shape, or form.
The article you linked advocates baptism in the Holy Spirit and biblical preaching as aspects of Pentacostalism that the Church should return to. It does not advocate nor address ordination of women in any way, shape, or form.
12.4.2012 | 5:45pm
Magistra Bona says:
Dear Ms. Scalia: Chiming in with several of the comments above: We are already priests. The ordained are 'ordered' to the liturgy. We are not if we are high-functioning laypeople. Ours is the whole rest of the world and all the souls in it. Of course, lay people can pray for healing and receive it. God, not the priest, does the healing. But only the priest can do the liturgy which is the outward sign of the inward grace of healing. The biggest problem the Church has with this issue is that it has not yet had time to adjust to the fact, made clear by 1965, that it actuallly HAS a laity. It never really thought about it before. In fact, laypeople never thought about themselves, their role, and their power before. It is a time of transition, and the clamour for women's ordination is merely a symptom of discomfort with the transition from ignorance to knowledge. The Catholics who want women priests don't want full-bore laypeople. They do not believe in lay people. They don't trust them. But, fortunately, God does. Give it time.
12.4.2012 | 6:08pm
Tsepho says:
While debates swirl about this issue, most people seem to ignore the central principle - Sacramental Theology. This issue is not fundamentally based on sociology or history. It is based on what Christ did in establishing the 7 sacraments, and the meaning of the 'outward signs' that they work through.
12.4.2012 | 9:04pm
Richard M says:
Hello Mack,
"The staff of the National Reporter [catholic] are free to believe in whatever they wish -- fairies, elves, Klingons -- but if they are honest men and women they will now drop "Catholic" from their title."
What they are, in fact, is Protestants. Which, I admit, is unfair to many fine Protestants I know, since they at least have the intellectually honesty to admit what they are.
And unlike the NcR, they haven't been seduced by the siren call of secularism and its panoply of atomistic values.
"The staff of the National Reporter [catholic] are free to believe in whatever they wish -- fairies, elves, Klingons -- but if they are honest men and women they will now drop "Catholic" from their title."
What they are, in fact, is Protestants. Which, I admit, is unfair to many fine Protestants I know, since they at least have the intellectually honesty to admit what they are.
And unlike the NcR, they haven't been seduced by the siren call of secularism and its panoply of atomistic values.
12.4.2012 | 9:14pm
Richard M says:
Hello Patrick,
"Ever see what happens when a church office is opened to women?"
We've seen what happens when protestant denominations open ordained ministry to women. They wither on the vine. The Episcopal Church is on track to cease existence in 20 years on current trends.
In fairness, of course, it's not merely because they ordain women. It's because of the modernist and anachronistic hermeneutic they employ in receiving the content of revelation, a hermeneutic which invariably results in many practices and doctrines with zero foundation in Scripture or tradition - including women's "ordination."
"Ever see what happens when a church office is opened to women?"
We've seen what happens when protestant denominations open ordained ministry to women. They wither on the vine. The Episcopal Church is on track to cease existence in 20 years on current trends.
In fairness, of course, it's not merely because they ordain women. It's because of the modernist and anachronistic hermeneutic they employ in receiving the content of revelation, a hermeneutic which invariably results in many practices and doctrines with zero foundation in Scripture or tradition - including women's "ordination."
12.4.2012 | 9:28pm
David K says:
@Anglican Reader
Pentecostals don't believe in ordination at all, at least not in the sense in which Catholics use that word.
Pentecostals don't believe in ordination at all, at least not in the sense in which Catholics use that word.
12.4.2012 | 9:56pm
MWM says:
My aunt entered the Lutheran seminary to fulfill what she felt was a calling, however her dream of serving Christ as a minister was much different than the role she had envisioned as an active participant of her church's lay ministry. She is a naturally empathetic person, which is one of her God-given gifts, however she had a difficult time separating her empathetic role when she was counseling those with problems and needed to not only be a great listener, but a composed voice of Christ's love and reassurance in a variety of circumstances. The most challenging was the responsibility to guide others when she was unable to separate her instinctive caretaker/friend role from the role of pastor when it was necessary.
We want and need our shepherd to sympathize and empathize, but also to compartmentalize. It's tough to do when you care so much. The role of a priest or minister is not an easy one. You are also an administrator. Add to the mix the necessity to have more than one parish to lead in many areas (like mine) and the stress is even greater. It's not easy and is emotionally exhausting. My aunt realized she enjoyed certain parts of the ministry far more than others, and is again serving in the lay ministry at her church, but very fulfilled to use her gifts where they are needed. She realized that she did not enjoy being an administrator and didn't enjoy all of the headaches that go along with the job.
Remind me again why women want to be priests?
We want and need our shepherd to sympathize and empathize, but also to compartmentalize. It's tough to do when you care so much. The role of a priest or minister is not an easy one. You are also an administrator. Add to the mix the necessity to have more than one parish to lead in many areas (like mine) and the stress is even greater. It's not easy and is emotionally exhausting. My aunt realized she enjoyed certain parts of the ministry far more than others, and is again serving in the lay ministry at her church, but very fulfilled to use her gifts where they are needed. She realized that she did not enjoy being an administrator and didn't enjoy all of the headaches that go along with the job.
Remind me again why women want to be priests?
12.4.2012 | 11:09pm
Anthony S. Layne says:
@ Aaron Rasmussen:
"I suspect it is the defenders of the tradition that wish to make such a dramatic distinction because it prevents any kind of reasoned discussion of the issue. It creates a false choice: 'If you are correct then the church is the antichrist!' Gee whiz, are those really the only two options? Does that attempt to address the substance of the question?"
Strip away the hyperbole, and your supposed "false choice" isn't false. If the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 14:26, 16:13) and the Holy Spirit is reliable (Rom 3:3-4; 2 Tim 2:13), then the Church's teaching is also reliable — that is, infallible. If however, the Church's teaching is unreliable because error-prone and error-riddled, then what becomes of the promises given to the Church by Christ? Either the Holy Spirit is unreliable (blasphemy) or has fickly abandoned the Church (vilipends God's fidelity, which is also blasphemy) — or Scripture gives us false testimony in this matter, which argues against Scripture being the "sole infallible rule of faith".
As for your charge that the assertion of authority "prevents any kind of reasoned discussion of the issue", we see from recent history that many people who question authority in the beginning only do so to assert their own unquestionable countervailing authority in the end. The assertion of authority here hasn't stopped any discussion, reasonable or not; it's simply a reminder of an inconvenient truth — the issue of women's ordination is already settled. Or, as St. Augustine said on another subject, "Letters have been sent to the Apostolic See, and from there rescripts have already come. The matter is at an end; would that error too might come to an end!"
I realize this doesn't yet address the question, "What quality must priests possess that women lack?" I've already gone on too long, but I can give you the short answer, and leave it for others to fill in the blanks: Priests are spiritual fathers to their community. No matter what odd theory is cooked up in your local university's Gender Studies program, the fact remains that women can't be fathers in any meaningful sense of the term.
"I suspect it is the defenders of the tradition that wish to make such a dramatic distinction because it prevents any kind of reasoned discussion of the issue. It creates a false choice: 'If you are correct then the church is the antichrist!' Gee whiz, are those really the only two options? Does that attempt to address the substance of the question?"
Strip away the hyperbole, and your supposed "false choice" isn't false. If the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 14:26, 16:13) and the Holy Spirit is reliable (Rom 3:3-4; 2 Tim 2:13), then the Church's teaching is also reliable — that is, infallible. If however, the Church's teaching is unreliable because error-prone and error-riddled, then what becomes of the promises given to the Church by Christ? Either the Holy Spirit is unreliable (blasphemy) or has fickly abandoned the Church (vilipends God's fidelity, which is also blasphemy) — or Scripture gives us false testimony in this matter, which argues against Scripture being the "sole infallible rule of faith".
As for your charge that the assertion of authority "prevents any kind of reasoned discussion of the issue", we see from recent history that many people who question authority in the beginning only do so to assert their own unquestionable countervailing authority in the end. The assertion of authority here hasn't stopped any discussion, reasonable or not; it's simply a reminder of an inconvenient truth — the issue of women's ordination is already settled. Or, as St. Augustine said on another subject, "Letters have been sent to the Apostolic See, and from there rescripts have already come. The matter is at an end; would that error too might come to an end!"
I realize this doesn't yet address the question, "What quality must priests possess that women lack?" I've already gone on too long, but I can give you the short answer, and leave it for others to fill in the blanks: Priests are spiritual fathers to their community. No matter what odd theory is cooked up in your local university's Gender Studies program, the fact remains that women can't be fathers in any meaningful sense of the term.
12.4.2012 | 11:29pm
Mariusz says:
@Rick,
In accordance with your logic, electrical circuits should be also water conduits. You look only at the transmission, not at what is being transmitted. Prayer can be done by anybody, with wonderful effects; the RITE of Extreme Unction can be performed only by the priest. See the difference now?
In accordance with your logic, electrical circuits should be also water conduits. You look only at the transmission, not at what is being transmitted. Prayer can be done by anybody, with wonderful effects; the RITE of Extreme Unction can be performed only by the priest. See the difference now?
12.5.2012 | 1:35am
Rick says:
Mark,
I think you made a salient point about the risks of exaggerating the distinctions between male and female. Granted, excesses in modern gender theory have gone to laughable extremes (i.e., gender is purely a social construct), but there is danger in the opposite extreme as well. When it comes to the Christian community, Paul makes it crystal clear in Galatians 3:28 that gender differences mean absolutely nothing. "...there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." If we are to believe scripture, therefore, there is no basis for identifying any role in the church as being "male" or "female" specific. Those distinctions no longer exist.
@Joe Sansonese: "without strong, heterosexual men in authority in the Church, the Church will in all likelihood become feminized..."
In that case, a large proportion of the priesthood had better be defrocked. I know two heterosexual men who dropped out of Catholic seminaries after they discovered they were the only straight men in their classes.
I think you made a salient point about the risks of exaggerating the distinctions between male and female. Granted, excesses in modern gender theory have gone to laughable extremes (i.e., gender is purely a social construct), but there is danger in the opposite extreme as well. When it comes to the Christian community, Paul makes it crystal clear in Galatians 3:28 that gender differences mean absolutely nothing. "...there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." If we are to believe scripture, therefore, there is no basis for identifying any role in the church as being "male" or "female" specific. Those distinctions no longer exist.
@Joe Sansonese: "without strong, heterosexual men in authority in the Church, the Church will in all likelihood become feminized..."
In that case, a large proportion of the priesthood had better be defrocked. I know two heterosexual men who dropped out of Catholic seminaries after they discovered they were the only straight men in their classes.
12.5.2012 | 5:46am
Michael PS says:
Bibbit wrote, “Do they really think the early Church didn't ordain women because of cultural concerns?”
I have always found this immensely implausible, given that priestesses were very common in the ancient world. The most revered sanctuary in Greece was the shrine of Phœbus Apollo at Delphi, where the oracle was uttered by the Pythian priestess. Readers of Plato will know that the temple of Zeus at Dordona was also served by priestesses. Both Apollo and Zeus, it should be noted, were male deities. The play “Iphigegnia in Taurus” contains no suggestion that there is anything unusual in a woman being a priestess.
In Latin, the word “sacerdos” is common gender. The SC De Bacchanaliis of 184 BC, which is preserved in monumental inscriptions, as well as literary sources, forbids women to offer sacrifice by night, except when celebrating the rites of the Good Goddess. Why, if they were not permitted to offer sacrifice at all? That the Vestals were priestesses is affirmed by Gaius, a very careful jurist and the Sybil at Cumæ was a priestess, according to Vergil.
It would be a cheap display of very trite learning to multiply examples.
I have always found this immensely implausible, given that priestesses were very common in the ancient world. The most revered sanctuary in Greece was the shrine of Phœbus Apollo at Delphi, where the oracle was uttered by the Pythian priestess. Readers of Plato will know that the temple of Zeus at Dordona was also served by priestesses. Both Apollo and Zeus, it should be noted, were male deities. The play “Iphigegnia in Taurus” contains no suggestion that there is anything unusual in a woman being a priestess.
In Latin, the word “sacerdos” is common gender. The SC De Bacchanaliis of 184 BC, which is preserved in monumental inscriptions, as well as literary sources, forbids women to offer sacrifice by night, except when celebrating the rites of the Good Goddess. Why, if they were not permitted to offer sacrifice at all? That the Vestals were priestesses is affirmed by Gaius, a very careful jurist and the Sybil at Cumæ was a priestess, according to Vergil.
It would be a cheap display of very trite learning to multiply examples.
12.5.2012 | 9:03am
Phil Ewing says:
The mission of the church is immutable but not its structures.
Some relevant points here and in many other writings from Mary McAleese who has also written a new book on collegiality in the church .
I don't find the title of this article that helpful but she does make some important points in this .
.http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/mcalees2.asp
Some relevant points here and in many other writings from Mary McAleese who has also written a new book on collegiality in the church .
I don't find the title of this article that helpful but she does make some important points in this .
.http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/mcalees2.asp
12.5.2012 | 9:42am
Bibbit says:
Michael PS - Though the apostles evangelized Jews and non-Jews, and lived where priestesses were common, I believe they worshiped primarily in Jewish houses of worship. So they would have experienced pressure to exclude women had they even considered it to be God's will. Still, I don't think that if they believed God wanted women to be priests or priestesses they would have allowed that pressure to stop them from ordaining women.
12.5.2012 | 11:56am
Flamen says:
According to scholastic philosophy every human being has the identical essence or nature. Corporeal anatomy is only an accidental modification of the nature - one of the nine ontological predicaments. A person's sex would not seem to be an impediment to ordination of a human being. Male only ordination could be the result of a patriarchal tradition and not the express intention of Jesus.
12.5.2012 | 12:10pm
Artaban7 says:
Rick,
It's taking Paul out of context in Galations 3:28 to suggest that it therefore means "there is no basis for identifying any role in the church as being "male" or "female" specific. Those distinctions no longer exist."
Paul was talking about the dignity of each human being, and the love God has for all. One gender/ethnicity of person is not loved more or less by God, and therefore more or less worthy of respect by other members of the Church. He was not talking about ministry in the Church. In fact, when he does speak about the forms of ministry in the Church, he quite explicitly says distinctions DO exist ("Are all prophets? Are all healers or teachers?..." 1 Cor 12:29)
There is a basis for identifying some (not all) roles in the church as being male or female.
It's taking Paul out of context in Galations 3:28 to suggest that it therefore means "there is no basis for identifying any role in the church as being "male" or "female" specific. Those distinctions no longer exist."
Paul was talking about the dignity of each human being, and the love God has for all. One gender/ethnicity of person is not loved more or less by God, and therefore more or less worthy of respect by other members of the Church. He was not talking about ministry in the Church. In fact, when he does speak about the forms of ministry in the Church, he quite explicitly says distinctions DO exist ("Are all prophets? Are all healers or teachers?..." 1 Cor 12:29)
There is a basis for identifying some (not all) roles in the church as being male or female.
12.5.2012 | 3:04pm
Corey says:
Not to pick too much, but in criticizing NCR's arguments as "evangelical," it should be noted that evangelical churches do not ordain women as pastors as they read the Bible the same way that Catholics do on the subject. Somehow, according to you, from an "evangelical" style argument, actual evanglicals reject the ordination of women. Perhaps, then, the more important prohibition of the ordination of women is in scripture, rather than in the traditions that grew from interpretation of scripture.
It should also be noted, as other have pointed towards, that one litmus test for whether a church is liberal in its theology and it social teaching is whether or not it ordains women. If you know a church's senior pastor is a woman, then you rarely need to do much more research to find out they also affirm liberal sexuality, etc.
It should also be noted, as other have pointed towards, that one litmus test for whether a church is liberal in its theology and it social teaching is whether or not it ordains women. If you know a church's senior pastor is a woman, then you rarely need to do much more research to find out they also affirm liberal sexuality, etc.
12.5.2012 | 4:39pm
Joe DeVet says:
By the way, re the comment that the priestess promoters are using the same tactic as same-sex marriage promoters--that the New Testament does not explicitly rule them out--it's false to make such a claim in terms of same-sex marriage.
It's a false argument anyway. To say that anything the New Testament does not explicitly forbid is thereby deemed acceptable is an empty and fallacious argument.
But beyond that, in the case of same-sex marriage, the New Testament does rule it out. In his letters, St Paul made it abundantly clear that the perverse acts which constitute same-sex relationships are repugnant and gravely sinful. In other places, following the lead of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul identifies marriage as holy and sacramental (cf Eph 5:21ff as one example). A thing cannot be at one and the same time repugnant and gravely sinful, while being holy and sacramental. No such thing as same-sex marriage.
It's a false argument anyway. To say that anything the New Testament does not explicitly forbid is thereby deemed acceptable is an empty and fallacious argument.
But beyond that, in the case of same-sex marriage, the New Testament does rule it out. In his letters, St Paul made it abundantly clear that the perverse acts which constitute same-sex relationships are repugnant and gravely sinful. In other places, following the lead of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul identifies marriage as holy and sacramental (cf Eph 5:21ff as one example). A thing cannot be at one and the same time repugnant and gravely sinful, while being holy and sacramental. No such thing as same-sex marriage.
12.5.2012 | 4:50pm
Don Roberto says:
It is time to prune the tree of the Faith, lest the dead limbs harm the innnocent young shoots. There are myriad Protestant sects to which the rebellious "Catholic" can turn for "spiritual sustenance" if she is so proud as to think herself wiser than the Vicar of Christ.
12.5.2012 | 4:52pm
Mark says:
Artaban 7,
It is certainly true that God does not love one sex over another, but the issue is this: is the divide between the sexes so great that there are two human natures (a male and a female) and not one? Because if the nature of the sexes is such that they are so fundamentally different that it is impossible for a woman to act in persona Christi by virtue of her sex, then we are saying that human nature is dual, not singular, and that there is a male-human-nature and a female-human-nature. Moreover, because what is not assumed by Our Lord in the Incarnation is not redeemed, we must eventually affirm one of two things that are both scandalous if the divide between the sexes is so great: either 1) Women do not share in Christ's atonement because he did not assume their nature and they must therefore await a female messiah; or 2) Women's salvation must be obtained through men, either through marriage or through some other means by which a woman submits herself to a man.
Put in other words: if Jesus is fully God and fully human and if male humans by virtue of their humanity (which they share with Christ) can act in persona Christi but female humans cannot, then female humans are not humans in the way that Jesus and other male humans are either because male humanity and female humanity are fundamentally different (which seems to be the argument thus far), or because femaleness is contrary to humanity and impedes its full expression. Simple, but troubling.
It may be argued that the situation with the priesthood is like that of motherhood or fatherhood--only a woman can be a mother, only a man a father. Indeed, that is so on a purely biological level. But a priest is not called to biological fatherhood, any more than a mother is, but a priest is called to exercise a spiritual fatherhood just as a mother may behave in a fatherly way to her children. A man may be motherly, a woman fatherly--let's not forget Julian of Norwich's justly famous observation regarding the Motherhood of Jesus.
Re: 1 Corinthians, I don't see that an affirmation that there are different and distinct ministries in the church establishes that some of them are for women and some for men. I think Paul was speaking here of vocations generally, saying that we are each called to a place in the community, not that the place to which we are called is pre-determined by our biological sex. Surely when Paul spoke of the diverse forms of ministry, affirming the various distinctions between them, he was speaking of vocations generally and not establishing sex-based criteria for various ministries.
I'm reminded of St. Brigit's legend. I'm thinking of the famous story of the consecration of St. Brigit as abbess in which Bishop Mel ordains her a bishop, not an abbess, and when it's pointed out to him what he's done, says that it must have been the Spirit of God that, having found her worthy, chose to ordain her in this way through him. Indeed, the Spirit calls us to the various offices, duties and ministries to which he calls us...and lest we think we know beforehand what the Spirit is going to do, we need only think of Samuel anointing the next King of Israel--when Samuel thinks he knows what God is up to and whom God will pick, God gently chides him, basically saying, "How wonderfully silly you are! I don't see things the way you do. I see them better, because I see them as they are."
It is certainly true that God does not love one sex over another, but the issue is this: is the divide between the sexes so great that there are two human natures (a male and a female) and not one? Because if the nature of the sexes is such that they are so fundamentally different that it is impossible for a woman to act in persona Christi by virtue of her sex, then we are saying that human nature is dual, not singular, and that there is a male-human-nature and a female-human-nature. Moreover, because what is not assumed by Our Lord in the Incarnation is not redeemed, we must eventually affirm one of two things that are both scandalous if the divide between the sexes is so great: either 1) Women do not share in Christ's atonement because he did not assume their nature and they must therefore await a female messiah; or 2) Women's salvation must be obtained through men, either through marriage or through some other means by which a woman submits herself to a man.
Put in other words: if Jesus is fully God and fully human and if male humans by virtue of their humanity (which they share with Christ) can act in persona Christi but female humans cannot, then female humans are not humans in the way that Jesus and other male humans are either because male humanity and female humanity are fundamentally different (which seems to be the argument thus far), or because femaleness is contrary to humanity and impedes its full expression. Simple, but troubling.
It may be argued that the situation with the priesthood is like that of motherhood or fatherhood--only a woman can be a mother, only a man a father. Indeed, that is so on a purely biological level. But a priest is not called to biological fatherhood, any more than a mother is, but a priest is called to exercise a spiritual fatherhood just as a mother may behave in a fatherly way to her children. A man may be motherly, a woman fatherly--let's not forget Julian of Norwich's justly famous observation regarding the Motherhood of Jesus.
Re: 1 Corinthians, I don't see that an affirmation that there are different and distinct ministries in the church establishes that some of them are for women and some for men. I think Paul was speaking here of vocations generally, saying that we are each called to a place in the community, not that the place to which we are called is pre-determined by our biological sex. Surely when Paul spoke of the diverse forms of ministry, affirming the various distinctions between them, he was speaking of vocations generally and not establishing sex-based criteria for various ministries.
I'm reminded of St. Brigit's legend. I'm thinking of the famous story of the consecration of St. Brigit as abbess in which Bishop Mel ordains her a bishop, not an abbess, and when it's pointed out to him what he's done, says that it must have been the Spirit of God that, having found her worthy, chose to ordain her in this way through him. Indeed, the Spirit calls us to the various offices, duties and ministries to which he calls us...and lest we think we know beforehand what the Spirit is going to do, we need only think of Samuel anointing the next King of Israel--when Samuel thinks he knows what God is up to and whom God will pick, God gently chides him, basically saying, "How wonderfully silly you are! I don't see things the way you do. I see them better, because I see them as they are."
12.6.2012 | 1:28am
edmond says:
For the women who want to become priests, it would be so easy for them to set up their own church with their own belief system. I don't see any reason why they think they need to change catholic church teaching. Unless the real reason for the "movement" is to adulterate curch teaching. If it is argued that women can be effective priests, then they should prove themselves by setting up another non-catholic denomination. Scripture in Acts 5:38 states that "for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nothing". I think the wannabee female priests have sadly discovered that they need the catholic church to give them the "blessing" or imprimatur to exercise ordained priest's functions, funny that. The other thing to wonder is with so much room in many convents globally, these women want to be priests? What's wrong with being a nun?
12.6.2012 | 1:44am
Rick says:
Mark,
Abundant thanks for the wonderful last paragraph of your comment above. I learned long ago that no-one should propose to know what God has up his sleeve, if you will excuse the homely metaphor. Honestly, I don't believe that even popes should claim to be infallibly guided. Even Jesus said that there were certain things that he did not know--only the Father knew them. We should leave infallibility to God alone. He will always surprise us with an end run!
Abundant thanks for the wonderful last paragraph of your comment above. I learned long ago that no-one should propose to know what God has up his sleeve, if you will excuse the homely metaphor. Honestly, I don't believe that even popes should claim to be infallibly guided. Even Jesus said that there were certain things that he did not know--only the Father knew them. We should leave infallibility to God alone. He will always surprise us with an end run!
12.6.2012 | 1:35pm
William Tighe says:
Rick wrote:
"Honestly, I don't believe that even popes should claim to be infallibly guided."
They don't "claim to be infallibly guided" -- wherever did you get that idea? What the Catholic Church claims, or, rather asserts as a defined and binding doctrine of the Catholic Faith, is that certain papal "definitions," issued under certain specified conditions, are themselves "infallible," that is, free from error. "Infallibility" does not adhere to the pope as an individual person, which would make him some sort of an oracle, but to certain papal statements, nor does it mean, necessarily, that such "dogmatic definitions" are as clear as one might wish, or that they cannot be bettered or further refined in the future -- but it does mean that the definitions are "irreformable," that is, they cannot be reversed or rescinded once they have been promulgated.
"Honestly, I don't believe that even popes should claim to be infallibly guided."
They don't "claim to be infallibly guided" -- wherever did you get that idea? What the Catholic Church claims, or, rather asserts as a defined and binding doctrine of the Catholic Faith, is that certain papal "definitions," issued under certain specified conditions, are themselves "infallible," that is, free from error. "Infallibility" does not adhere to the pope as an individual person, which would make him some sort of an oracle, but to certain papal statements, nor does it mean, necessarily, that such "dogmatic definitions" are as clear as one might wish, or that they cannot be bettered or further refined in the future -- but it does mean that the definitions are "irreformable," that is, they cannot be reversed or rescinded once they have been promulgated.
12.6.2012 | 6:19pm
Rick says:
William,
Yes, I understand the docrine of papal infallibility reasonably well. I never implied that the church holds the pope to be infallible as a person. I know better. However, the church holds that all ex cathedra definitions pronounced by popes on matters of faith and morals are themselves infallible doctrines and teachings. In fact, the entire body of teaching of the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals is held to be infallible. Thus, for a pope to issue infallible definitions, he must be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. That is why I did NOT say that not even popes should claim to be infallible. I said that not even popes should claim to be infallibly GUIDED. It is that claim that I questioned. But thank you for your attempt at clarification.
Yes, I understand the docrine of papal infallibility reasonably well. I never implied that the church holds the pope to be infallible as a person. I know better. However, the church holds that all ex cathedra definitions pronounced by popes on matters of faith and morals are themselves infallible doctrines and teachings. In fact, the entire body of teaching of the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals is held to be infallible. Thus, for a pope to issue infallible definitions, he must be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. That is why I did NOT say that not even popes should claim to be infallible. I said that not even popes should claim to be infallibly GUIDED. It is that claim that I questioned. But thank you for your attempt at clarification.
12.7.2012 | 2:53pm
Artaban7 says:
Mark, you write, " Moreover, because what is not assumed by Our Lord in the Incarnation is not redeemed, we must eventually affirm one of two things that are both scandalous if the divide between the sexes is so great: either 1) Women do not share in Christ's atonement because he did not assume their nature and they must therefore await a female messiah; or 2) Women's salvation must be obtained through men, either through marriage or through some other means by which a woman submits herself to a man. "
I don't see the grounds for either of these lines of argument, for several reasons;
1. The Blessed Virgin Mary achieves for women a share in Christ's atonement with her "Fiat". Her obedience overturns the Original Sin of Eve, in much the same way that Christ's obedience overturns the Original Sin of Adam. There is a reason the Church acknowledges Mary as "Co-Redemptrix".
2. As for your #2, about "women's salvation being obtained through men", that is partially true. But it is also true that "man's salvation is only obtained through Christ" as well. Man can't achieve his own salvation, which is why God had to become Incarnate. Finally, God being a complete gentleman, we men are saved through Mary's "yes" to the Incarnation, so some would say the opposite of what you find troubling (man's salvation is only obtained because a woman [Mary] first said yes to Christ)
I don't see the grounds for either of these lines of argument, for several reasons;
1. The Blessed Virgin Mary achieves for women a share in Christ's atonement with her "Fiat". Her obedience overturns the Original Sin of Eve, in much the same way that Christ's obedience overturns the Original Sin of Adam. There is a reason the Church acknowledges Mary as "Co-Redemptrix".
2. As for your #2, about "women's salvation being obtained through men", that is partially true. But it is also true that "man's salvation is only obtained through Christ" as well. Man can't achieve his own salvation, which is why God had to become Incarnate. Finally, God being a complete gentleman, we men are saved through Mary's "yes" to the Incarnation, so some would say the opposite of what you find troubling (man's salvation is only obtained because a woman [Mary] first said yes to Christ)
12.8.2012 | 11:05am
Mark says:
Artaban7, you're not quite dealing with the central question: are women fully human in the way that men and Christ are fully human? If they are, then a woman acting in persona Christi should not disturb us because in assuming humanity, Christ assumed all of humanity--that Christ was human is more important for his work of salvation than that he was male. If women are not fully human in he way that men and Christ are, then of course a woman could never act in persona Christi because they don't share a common human nature--that Christ was male definitively affects the efficacy and scope of his redeeming work.
Your objections are clever and made me smile. The image of God as a perfect gentleman is quite lovely. But in the end, your objections are insubstantial.
1) I'm very fond of this definition of merit: it is the shape which grace takes in a human life. Our Lady was full of merit (taking the form of obedience in this case) because she was full of grace. Her obedience is a reflection of that fullness. But that fullness is not sui generis but is entirely a good gift to her from God. Not being God, she cannot redeem herself, nor can she redeem others--but insofar as she is given grace to participate in the redeeming work of her Son, then she can indeed be called co-redemptrix. It should be noted that we, too, are called to participate in the redemptive work of Christ and to be co-redeemers: as Meister Eckhart writes (and I paraphrase)--What good is it if the Angel comes to Mary to say she shall conceive the Word if I do not also conceive the Word in my own soul?
It should also be noted that Mary has not been infallibly and dogmatically defined as Co-Redemptrix. I suspect that such a definition will not made in order to avoid blurring this very important distinction: Our Lady is an agent of redemption, but not its author.
2) The only document that I know of which suggests that women are saved through men who are saved through Christ is the heretical sayings Gospel of Thomas in which Jesus suggests that the female must be made male in order to enter the kingdom. That makes sense if you're a gnostic heretic, but not if you want to be a Catholic Christian. If you affirm that a woman's salvation is only obtained through a male, understanding by this that a woman is deficient insofar as she is not a man and that her deficiency must be supplemented through someone else's maleness, then it seems as if you'll wind up doing significant violence to an orthodox understanding of redemption--i.e. you'll wind up affirming some version of the following: that an unmarried woman cannot be saved unless she becomes one flesh with a man in order to receive salvation from Christ through her husband. That's absurd, of course, but the dualism toward which you seem to be tending can only lead to absurdity.
In the end, Mary's story is bound up with Christ's. Yes! Thank God! But Mary's story is her story and is *truly* her story only because (in a wonderful paradox!) it is Christ's story, just as our own stories can only truly become our own because of Christ. Mary's story is not a parallel story of women's redemption, but a part of the larger Mystery of Christ's own work bringing about the redemption of all of humanity through himself, with himself, in himself.
Your objections are clever and made me smile. The image of God as a perfect gentleman is quite lovely. But in the end, your objections are insubstantial.
1) I'm very fond of this definition of merit: it is the shape which grace takes in a human life. Our Lady was full of merit (taking the form of obedience in this case) because she was full of grace. Her obedience is a reflection of that fullness. But that fullness is not sui generis but is entirely a good gift to her from God. Not being God, she cannot redeem herself, nor can she redeem others--but insofar as she is given grace to participate in the redeeming work of her Son, then she can indeed be called co-redemptrix. It should be noted that we, too, are called to participate in the redemptive work of Christ and to be co-redeemers: as Meister Eckhart writes (and I paraphrase)--What good is it if the Angel comes to Mary to say she shall conceive the Word if I do not also conceive the Word in my own soul?
It should also be noted that Mary has not been infallibly and dogmatically defined as Co-Redemptrix. I suspect that such a definition will not made in order to avoid blurring this very important distinction: Our Lady is an agent of redemption, but not its author.
2) The only document that I know of which suggests that women are saved through men who are saved through Christ is the heretical sayings Gospel of Thomas in which Jesus suggests that the female must be made male in order to enter the kingdom. That makes sense if you're a gnostic heretic, but not if you want to be a Catholic Christian. If you affirm that a woman's salvation is only obtained through a male, understanding by this that a woman is deficient insofar as she is not a man and that her deficiency must be supplemented through someone else's maleness, then it seems as if you'll wind up doing significant violence to an orthodox understanding of redemption--i.e. you'll wind up affirming some version of the following: that an unmarried woman cannot be saved unless she becomes one flesh with a man in order to receive salvation from Christ through her husband. That's absurd, of course, but the dualism toward which you seem to be tending can only lead to absurdity.
In the end, Mary's story is bound up with Christ's. Yes! Thank God! But Mary's story is her story and is *truly* her story only because (in a wonderful paradox!) it is Christ's story, just as our own stories can only truly become our own because of Christ. Mary's story is not a parallel story of women's redemption, but a part of the larger Mystery of Christ's own work bringing about the redemption of all of humanity through himself, with himself, in himself.
12.10.2012 | 10:24am
Deacon Tom says:
Dear Rick (comment on 12/4): Elizabeth's thoughtful comments do not open up the discussion you suggest about the necessity of the ministerial priesthood. The Catholic Church answered that question long ago. Vatican II clarified the universal call to holiness of all believers, and the invaluable role of the laity in the life of the Church. But there is no discussion about the need for the ministerial priesthood. Your comments are essentially protestant in nature, and you sound like a true follower of Martin Luther and his ilk he sought to rewrite the Gospels and 1500 years of Tradition (capital "T") and Church teaching. If you are Catholic, I suggest you read the Vatican II documents, especially Lumen Gentium. As for whether grace is limited to the ministerial priesthood--of course not! We cannot limit God's grace and we can always pray for people. The sacrament of anointing of the sick comes from the Letter of St. James "Is any amoong you sick? Let him call for the elders [priests] of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord,..."
12.11.2012 | 10:24am
Artaban7 says:
"...are women fully human in the way that men and Christ are fully human? If they are, then a woman acting in persona Christi should not disturb."
Mark, I find this line of reasoning "insubstantial", to borrow your words. Of course women are fully human in the way men and Christ are. But to be fully human does not mean to be "the same". That's the great error of liberalism--thinking that since all are not equal in all ways, evil or division must be present.
You seem to ignore that for one to act "in persona Christi" is not something that men possess by nature. That attribute is imparted through an entirely gratuitous act of God's grace, and it cannot be chosen, but must be revealed and affirmed by those outside oneself. Grace, as the Fathers say, adds to nature, it doesn't stand in opposition to it. You are making the erroneous leap of logic that if we don't say women are capable of receiving the particular grace of acting "in persona Christi", their nature must not be redeemed.
One could easily reverse your logic and suggest that men are less than human, since they cannot give birth, as women do.
You might find some traction with the thought not possessing the grace of ordination means one is "less" than another...prior to Vatican II. But remember that one of the main thrusts of V II was to correct the dangerous perception of the laity that only vowed religious could be truly holy. Those of us born after V II see the faulty conclusion of such thinking. You seem to want to take us back to it, and create division where there not not be.
I've never met a person or a priest that believed in male ordination that thought women are "not fully human". I suspect that's because it takes an intellectual pushing an agenda to make such ridiculous arguments. In fact, the orthodox Catholics tend to be the ones most reverent of Mary's dignity, and insistent that she stands above all men save Christ alone.
Mark, I find this line of reasoning "insubstantial", to borrow your words. Of course women are fully human in the way men and Christ are. But to be fully human does not mean to be "the same". That's the great error of liberalism--thinking that since all are not equal in all ways, evil or division must be present.
You seem to ignore that for one to act "in persona Christi" is not something that men possess by nature. That attribute is imparted through an entirely gratuitous act of God's grace, and it cannot be chosen, but must be revealed and affirmed by those outside oneself. Grace, as the Fathers say, adds to nature, it doesn't stand in opposition to it. You are making the erroneous leap of logic that if we don't say women are capable of receiving the particular grace of acting "in persona Christi", their nature must not be redeemed.
One could easily reverse your logic and suggest that men are less than human, since they cannot give birth, as women do.
You might find some traction with the thought not possessing the grace of ordination means one is "less" than another...prior to Vatican II. But remember that one of the main thrusts of V II was to correct the dangerous perception of the laity that only vowed religious could be truly holy. Those of us born after V II see the faulty conclusion of such thinking. You seem to want to take us back to it, and create division where there not not be.
I've never met a person or a priest that believed in male ordination that thought women are "not fully human". I suspect that's because it takes an intellectual pushing an agenda to make such ridiculous arguments. In fact, the orthodox Catholics tend to be the ones most reverent of Mary's dignity, and insistent that she stands above all men save Christ alone.
First, the deeper question is not whether only men should be priests. It is whether the priesthood, as defined by the church, holds the exclusive keys to the dispensing of the grace of God. Are not all Christians baptized to be "priest, prophet, and king?" And if our baptism confirms that priestly gifts are given to all believers, then that must obviously include female believers. So we must already have women who are carrying out priestly duties. The church has given them a priestly role with one hand at their baptism, and taken it away with the other by denying them admission to the formal priesthood. This has always struck me as a strange contradiction. But the role of priest is that of "sanctifier," just as the role of prophet is teacher and illuminator of God's will, and the role of king is ruler. Is there some reason that a woman might be seen as unfit (possibly "unclean") for a sanctifying role?
Awhile ago, we had the sacrament of the annointing of the sick in our church. Everyone with a health problem lined up and our priest took the vial of oil and approached the first ailing congregant. Then he paused for a second, smiled broadly, and said to all of us, "I'm the only one who can do this." I had to stifle a chuckle when I heard it.
You see, his comment brought back the memory of the time I was living temporarily with my friends Ken and Rose after I had returned from foreign service in Armenia. One night I was beginning to feel very sick. A fever was setting in, and I felt simply oppressed, the way I do when some serious virus is hitting me. I canceled my plans to meet my friends for folkdancing at Stanford, and resigned myself to a few days of misery. But Ken and Rose insisted that I let them pray over me. They sat me in a chair, layed their hands on me, and prayed in tongues. Within ten minutes, the fever, oppression, and all the rest of it simply evaporated, leaving me with a wonderful sense of well-being. I met my friends shortly afterwards for folkdancing.
If the living power of God can flow through devout, faithful Catholics like Ken and Rose to heal the sick, whatever rationale can there be for our priest to claim that only he can administer a sacrament of healing? What does such a claim really mean? Again, does the priesthood have the exlusive franchise on the grace of God that is claimed for it? This is the nagging question I can't get over.