Why them and not us?
Print Friendly Version| From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister, OSB | July 17, 2008 |
| Vol. 6, No. 4 |
The church world got a really good piece of advice this week. The pope, we're told, warned the Anglicans not to split over their internal controversies about homosexuality and the ordination of women bishops. He warned, quite wisely, about the dangers and the destructiveness of schism. (See Pope rides to Rowan's rescue) As easy as it sounds to simply go away and play in your own ecclesiastical sandbox, the fact is that divisions are never neat -- if for no other reason than that they not only fail to resolve the present problem but they model how not to resolve the next problem, too. After all, if we can fix one issue by simply leaving it, we can do the same with the next one -- and there will be a next one -- until what was intended to be a nice, clean division becomes one fracture after another, more a splintering and a slivering, than a surgically healing separation of unlike tissues.
Now if the Catholic church could only get to the same clear point about the question of "excommunication" and/or "interdict" -- the process of splintering a church within a church, of putting people outside the pale of the sacraments, of separating ourselves from contentious questions one person, one diocese, at a time. While we're getting better at holding both ends against the middle at times -- we managed to deal with the Feenyites and the Lefevbrites, for instance -- we clearly have some serious problems about how to deal with individuals who dare to raise new questions in the midst of a shifting body politic. Like how to be personally moral in a pluralistic state if you're a politician or, worse, a candidate for political office, for instance. Like how to maintain past liturgical forms in the face of the development of more contemporary ones.
Nevertheless, more important than the question of excommunication is the unevenness with which it is applied. We excommunicate women who support the ordination of women, for instance, but we don't excommunicate either military officers or military chaplains who support the use of nuclear weapons. We excommunicate people who belong to groups of which we don't approve. In the past, for instance, YMCAs and YWCAs were forbidden to Catholics. In the present, in some places, it's membership in Call to Action. But we didn't excommunicate bishops or priests who said nothing about Adolph Hitler in Germany or Augusto Pinochet in Chile, nor did the church excommunicate those who belonged to their organizations.
Now we are watching while Sister of Charity Louise Lears is denied the sacraments and the opportunity to minister in the archdiocese of St. Louis for her support of the role of women in the church, though women religious have always worked on behalf of the role of women in church and society when the rest of the world stood aghast at the thought of even educating women, let alone training them for independence. Yet, at the same time, executioners in prisons -- who do their public work secretly! -- will not be excommunicated for executing prisoners. Whatever we think of the essential morality of state executions, the number of errors we now know to be the norm in the public practice of capital punishment ought surely be enough to make the practice morally reprehensible.
We are, in other words, dangerously close to being more punitive of women who raise theological questions about women's role in the church than we are of any other facet of moral confusion or contention in society. And the situation is not a new one. In the 1600s, the church excommunicated Mary Ward for wanting to start a religious order of non-cloistered women. In our own era, in Indiana, they excommunicated M. Theodore Guerin, foundress of the Sisters of Providence, for starting new schools without the bishop's permission. She was canonized in 2006. In 1871, they excommunicated Mary MacKillop in Australia for trying to do the same and then beatified her in 1995. Church officials excommunicated Joan of Arc -- and burned her at the stake -- because she wouldn't agree to obey the church voices around her over the voice of God she heard in her heart. But they don't excommunicate pedophile priests who prey on children or military dictators who use genocide or ethnic cleansing as a political tool against others and massacre against their own. No, we just excommunicate those who question the practices of the church itself.
There will be a great deal written about Lears' situation, of course, -- and it should be -- while we all try to sort out both the question and the so-called spiritual cure.
But the issue, not the system, is the issue. Instead of a difference of opinion about the role of women in religion, a subject that is at this moment of history a topic in every tradition, every religion, every part of the globe, we now have a full-blown ecclesiastical shoot-out. An "excommunication." A casting out even of those who do not break the canon laws on the subject but who do broach the forbidden discussion. What should be seen as part of the spiritual discipline of living in hope and faith and openness to the Holy Spirit in "the-already-but-not-yet" is labeled instead as infidelity.
Finding ourselves in a time of social turmoil when all the answers of the past are being brought into question has become for many a Galileo moment. Non-thinking, euphemistically called "obedience" in such situations, has become more important than the search for light in darkness. The last time such things happened we made it a mortal sin to go to the marriage of a loved one in a Protestant church. We turned a blind eye and deaf ear on wife-beating while forbidding divorce and remarriage. We declared slavery the will of God and made one human color the color of intelligence, ordination and the fullness of humanity. As a church, we forgot the Gospel on some issues and condemned whatever was the present brand of heretics.
But the scripture is there and won't go away. In the face of all that, Jesus tells us a parable: "Do you want us to go and pull up the weeds?" the laborers in the story ask the farmer about the bad seed "an enemy had sown." The answer, at a time of great change and deep reflection, ought perhaps to give us great pause: "No," the scripture answers, "because as you gather the weeds you might pull up some of the wheat along with them." We pulled up a lot of wheat with the excommunication of Martin Luther and the reformers, for instance, and have been trying to repair those exclusions ever since. Surely this is no time to start doing the same kind of thing again. Surely we have learned better by this time. Surely we don't want to do it to one nun whose only crime is a question and in whom the people see a minister of uncommon quality. Maybe we ought to "leave some chaff and grain to grow up together" for a while longer until we can see clearly which is which.
From where I stand, Pope Benedict XVI is dead right about urging the Anglicans to sit down together and work things out. He's right about calling us to remember that we're all in a time of new beginnings. He's surely right, history shows us, about making community a more demanding factor than law with all its cultural vagaries and historic changes. Now if we ourselves would only take the call to heart and sit down together and do the same.
Editor's Note: For more of NCR's reporting on the Louise Lears case, see:
- Archdiocese says no one authorized to video ordination
- Rabbi would have denied permission to record ordination
- St. Louis Archdiocese videoed women's ordination rite
- Beleaguered St. Louis parish hit again
- Women's group protests Lears' banishment
- Excommunicated lay board dissolves itself, one member reconciles
- Community supports ousted St. Louis nun
- Burke to head Vatican's supreme court
- Women find a way: Though the church bans women priests, more are saying, "Why wait?" NCR's story about the November ordination of women in St. Louis
- Battlescars: women's souls cannot be killed A column by Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estés
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
Gosh, I haven’t played
Gosh, I haven’t played "betcha can’t tell me" (and its variations) since grade school, but since you’re game, let’s the two of us play.
Can you tell me, COL55, what Woman of Color made inquiries to Women Priests and came away with the distinct impression that their preference is for white and lesbian?
So Women of Color expect a “free ride,” huh? You really think this? Your even suggesting it shows your color, doesn’t it?
No, Whitey, Women of Color do not want a free ride—and they most certainly do not want to be ridden by white women either.
Sabithah
There is a movement within
There is a movement within the Church to support women in fulfilling their Call to Serve. Many People like Fr. Marek Bozek are getting persecuted and portrayed as anarchistic type people for doing the Will of God in supporting our sisters. Here's another case. Please show your support for Fr. Roy. Don't let the hierarchy misrepresent his actions as those of a rogue priest acting on his own when in reality he is representing a growing movement within the Church struggling to get the just recognition of women's fulfilling their calling from God in ways that have been unjustly prohibited for ages. I received this is the mail today. I invite all who are willing to participate.
May God Bless and protect Fr. Roy and the women of our Church who continue to serve God in the most fulfilling way possible.
Dear Joseph
Fr. Roy Bourgeois of the School of the America's Watch (SOA Watch) has been called to a meeting of his superiors after he co-celebrated and gave the homily at a woman's ordination in Lexington, Kentucky. It is likely to be a "disciplinary" meeting.
Call To Action has always supported Fr. Roy and his work in closing down the SOA that trains soldiers in human rights abuses. Today, we stand again in solidarity with Fr. Roy as he seeks to end discrimination against women in the church.
Write Fr. Roy's superiors now and urge them to support Fr. Roy and women's equality in our church:
Email: Superior General John Sivalon -- jsivalon@maryknoll.org
Email: The Maryknoll Council -- mklcouncil@maryknoll.org
Or send a letter to:
Maryknoll Council
P.O. Box 303
Maryknoll, NY 10545
When we spoke with Fr. Roy this afternoon he said that the priests of Maryknoll "have been working for many years on these issues of justice and this is another issue of justice."
Support Fr. Roy and the movement for women's equality in the church. Email or write his superiors today!
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Responding to your comments
Responding to your comments on racism, COL55, I’ll begin with an anecdote.
There’s a woman of my acquaintance—white, feminist, community activist Liberal—who invited me to pick her up at her newly purchased house, whence we walked to a nearby Ethiopian restaurant for lunch. As we traversed her neighborhood, I could see the gentrified core where she lived abruptly end in houses of the same essential quality as hers but all fallen into disrepair. When I pointed this out, she admitted the gentry would probably soon purchase and restore these too, as she was restoring hers. What would happen to the poor colored people? I asked her. Who was fighting for their right to stay where they were? She put on a long face and said she felt very deeply and worried about them. And that was it. Later, I told all this to a mutual friend, who knew the woman in question far better than I. My friend laughed, saying, “Of course **** loves poor people of color and is always speaking and writing about their plight ... but ... BUT she loves her house value more. And maybe we should carve that on her tombstone.”
Everyone is a racist, COL55, in the sense that the color of his (or her) skin colors that person’s perception of the world. Some racism is raw (you think mine is). Some racism is wrapped up so tight in virtue that it’s invisible to itself, if not necessarily to those able to strip it from its pretty wrapping. And that’s what my anecdote illustrates.
It’s my view, COL55, that the racism of the virtuous white Liberal is racism of the very worst kind—and, by far, the most difficult kind of racism to eradicate.
Think back to previous postings here on the thoroughgoing whiteness of Roman Catholic Women Priests under its present leadership! When you examine it closely, RCWP is white racism all gussied up in feminine virtue, making it near impossible for some people to recognize what’s in play beneath its surface?
By the way, your reference to “the hypocrisy, inauthenticity, lack of integrity, and fundamentalist mentality” of the Roman Catholic Church leadership is smear talk—sheer demonization, which I’ve already condemned. Those who engage in it are either too lazy to think or have nothing to say or, more likely, both. For God’s sake, let go of it!
Simonn
What does any of this have
What does any of this have to do with the issues facing the catholic church?
The truth of the matter is that the majority of those you speak of could care less about the catholic church. Their interest in elsewhere. When one group as a whole is not interested in participating with another, which one has the racist attitude ... the one that welcomes, or the one that chooses not to participate?
Show me one non-white woman that has been excluded from women priest. You cant! When none choose to participate, when none choose to go through
the program to qualify themselves, it is not racism, but it definitely is something.
Perhaps you expect the title to be handed to someone who is not qualified?
Perhaps you think that a non-white color is an entitlement to a free ride?
The women who were ordained worked their backsides off to get the qualifications to be ordained. Show me one non-white women who has even shown an interest in the process. Again, you cant.
You are correct though, this is about racism, but it is not white racism.
You are correct about something else:
--- "(it is )near impossible for some people to recognize what’s in play
--- is racism of the very worst kind"
You really should spend more time in front of a mirror.
Dear Col55, You cannot
Dear Col55, You cannot introduce me to a female Catholic Priest whether she be black or white. No matter that this woman studied hard or did not. There was never a woman ordained by a Consecrated Bishop and there will not be unless there is a pronouncement from the Vatican. Your arguments along these lines are useless. If you feel so strongly about this cause why not take up a petition signed by millions of Catholics. A petition of this type may have influence. If not, at least you tried!!
No offense, Simonn, but this
No offense, Simonn, but this is a very old SELF-critique of white, feminist, community activist liberals (or is that "Liberals" to show off the political persuasion more clearly?), which is no doubt part of our culture precisely because of their own public self-critique at least 30-35 years ago.
That ability to self-critique earlier and with more power and strength is part of what is more liberal than what is more conservative--a part of the very definition of liberal thought. Can you do it with your own self and your own thinking, or can you use just use the product of their self-critique to try to tell them that they have "racism of the very worst kind." Work this over, why don't you?
Thank You Sister Joan. And
Thank You Sister Joan. And may God continue to bless and guide your work.
You wrote: The church world got a really good piece of advice this week. The pope, we're told, warned the Anglicans not to split over their internal controversies about homosexuality and the ordination of women bishops. He warned, quite wisely, about the dangers and the destructiveness of schism. (See Pope rides to Rowan's rescue)
I think it’s so true that in the discussions of what it means to be what one is in their church, that abject punishment and rejections of positions or opinions held should be restrained as the church and ALL it’s members review these actions or reactions to these discussions of ideas of new roles for church members should be listened to with great respect and consideration.
The current Pope as well as the last of indicated the importance of listening and reviewing ideas and precepts as presented by and about women and by and about ecclesiastical sources.
Your statement:
Now if the Catholic church could only get to the same clear point about the question of "excommunication" and/or "interdict" -- the process of splintering a church within a church, of putting people outside the pale of the sacraments, of separating ourselves from contentious questions one person, one diocese, at a time.
Is definitely an important point to consider. In another thread on this site I argued and presently parishioners opinions that reflected the same sentiment on excommunication as you do here. We should rush to impose punishment on anyone. We should be patient and tolerant as Jesus teaches us profoundly in his lessons and the way He lived His life. In St. Louis hierarchical decisions were rash and punitive and lacked the patience of a more thorough review of the situation and the intent and understanding of the parishioners.
Sister you rightly point out the injustices within the church as practiced currently against the well being of women and in the past against the well- being of other innocent classes of peoples. Justice and balance SHOULD be strived for within the church. It is the Body of Christ on earth and should reflect the BEING of Christ as much as possible. In equalities and injustices within the church should be weeded out like the chaff at harvest time.
Thank you Sister for your excellent comparisons laying the errors of the church visible like the weeds among the wheat at harvest time for quick removal, and improving the quality of church life and Spirituality for those who remain True to and in Christ’s Love.
You conclude with:
From where I stand, Pope Benedict XVI is dead right about urging the Anglicans to sit down together and work things out. He's right about calling us to remember that we're all in a time of new beginnings. He's surely right, history shows us, about making community a more demanding factor than law with all its cultural vagaries and historic changes. Now if we ourselves would only take the call to heart and sit down together and do the same.
To that I add, Amen. In God's Love we strive to better ourslves according to the life lived by Christ Our Lord.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
So demonization is your
So demonization is your gameplan, is it Col55? You label your adversary "fear-monger" or "hate-monger" (in my case the latter) and then pose as the embodiment of Christian Love, given a dispensation under the rules of "Inclusionism" to exclude what you don’t like and yet remain virtuously inclusive?
It’s all too familiar these days, particularly in the Episcopal Church attacks on African bishops in the current Anglican Church crisis. It’s easy. It’s also stifling and clumsy. And, finally, it says more about you sorts than about me.
I have a feeling you might be fond of deceptively cruel terms like “respectful conversation”, “mutual generosity”, “listening with humility”, “engaging in REAL conversation”, “listening in ambiguity”. If you happen not to, consider them for they would add another layer of impregnability to your bastion of self-virtue?
About one thing you may be right. I too hastily accepted Colkoch’s “approximately 10 million Roman Catholics who have freely chosen to leave the Roman Catholic Church” and ran thoughtlessly away with it. The Pew study of religion in America (issued earlier this year) reports a 10% figure of Catholic Church leave-taking nationwide, but when focused on adults (only adults were surveyed), the true loss would seem to be at least a third less than you state, and made up for by converts and immigrants. Both Pew and The Bama Group (studying U.S. Catholic Church demographics specifically) find Catholic numbers a stable ¼ of the U.S. population. While Pew concludes the U.S. Catholic Church is 65% white, Bama (using a larger Catholic sample) places it at 60% (and, in both studies, whites are in decline). Church leadership is not 99+% Caucasian, as you say. According to USCCB data it is some 10 percentage points below that, still too high but coming down point by point to match demographic reality.
Against all this, the mainly white U.S. Episcopal Church (only 2 million-strong to begin with) is in freefall. According to anecdotal evidence, it is acquiring gays and women (more or less code for lesbians) from the Catholic Church but is losing heterosexuals with families to such an extent that its membership loss is absolute—and continuing. It now has approximately 110 active bishops for its 2 million members and sometime this century may achieve a ratio of 1 bishop for each 1 person sitting in the pews. A truly astonishing achievement!
Interestingly, a quarter of the bishops attending the Lambeth Conference in England were from the Episcopal Church (Presiding Bishop Schori herself said so). Throw in the Canadians and the number approaches a third. And yet Episcopalians complain that African Anglicans (who constitute a majority of the worldwide 77-million Anglican Communion’s practicing membership) are merely interested in power.
Isn’t it always the case that white people holding power never think of themselves as white people holding power? They only think about power when they’re faced with demands from non-whites for equitable representation in governance. Are African wrong to identify the mentality of Anglicans in the Global North as “colonialist”?
Anyway, bringing this to an end, I take the view that statistical reporting errors are serious and indicate sloppy work. And I’ll take my lumps for that.
You, however, take the view that such errors are a sign of moral turpitude. What punishment are you willing to impose on yourself for that?
Simonn
Simonn: In your post you
Simonn:
In your post you stated:
>>> Now you don’t raise a stink about it because (let’s face it)
>>> the Anglo-Catholics are not your kind of Christian so you could
>>> care less
... the Catholic Church crisis we keep hearing and reading about
... is essentially a white crisis, right?
>>> as a result, we can expect more white flight, right?
Lets face it simonn, if you substituted a derogatory word that referred to the african american race, you would have been crucified on the spot for making racist remarks.
You stated “So demonization is your gameplan, is it Col55?”
--- No, I am taking a stand against racist comments in these posts.
--- They serve no purpose. You could have made the same points without using
--- inflamatory rhetoric. You chose the rhetoric you used.
--- What does that say about you?
You also stated: “I have a feeling you might be fond of deceptively cruel terms like “respectful conversation”, “mutual generosity”, “listening with humility”, “engaging in REAL conversation”,”
--- I’ll plagerize a line from my favorit mac davis song:
--- “hell I don’t even know what that means” (really dont care either)
--- "I guess it has something to do with .... blue jeans"
You also stated: “Either you didn't get my point, COL55, or I failed to get across my point,”
--- yes I did miss the point.
--- As I rethink it, I see validity in what you are saying – just being human,
--- by nature of our humanity, we are all exclusionary to some degree. I agree.
You had valid points that offer a lot to the discussion here. Unfortunately, most people tune out when they encounter the rhetoric. I could have also. I chose to confront the issue in hopes that we might be able to get past it and create a dialogue.
Your point about 89% of the leadership appears to be accurate. That was my error. I should have said Vatican instead of leadership. There, the 99% is close to accurate.
Is there a ethnic problem in the catholic church? I don’t know. Are there disproportionate percentages of caucasian and african americans? Yes. Why? I don’t know. I do know the catholic church as a whole is not racially exclusive. I would suspect that there is a cultural issue, such as african americans in this country generally tend to come from protestant family backgrounds. The majority of caucasian catholics in this country tend to be “cradle catholics”. I don’t know statistics, but I would suspect if you look at adult conversion statistics you might find the disparity disappearing and the numbers becoming more reflective of general population distribution.
Re: the anglican church issues, I'm not anglican, I dont know.
Re: the exodus away from organized religions, that is an established fact
Did they chose to "chose to freely leave the Roman Catholic Church and run thoughtlessly away". I cant speak for everyone, but I would imagine the main reason 30 million have left, and more leave every day is because they could no longer rationalize the hypocrisy, inauthenticity, lack of integrity, and fundametalist mentality they were encountering from their leadership.
Either you didn't get my
Either you didn't get my point, COL55, or I failed to get across my point, and it's this:
ALL people are "exclusionists," because it's part of our human DNA to exclude. Conservatives exlude; Liberals exclude. Christians exclude; Muslims exclude. Republicans exclude; Democrats exclude. The U.S. Marine Corps excludes; Harvard excludes. I exclude; You exclude; Sr. Joan excludes.
Even God, who on the Day of Judgment will take some people into heaven but send others to hell, excludes. All of which means that
ALL people claiming to be "inclusionists" are liars. I'll venture to say a lot of people claiming to be, who read and comment here regularly, would in a heartbeat exclude me and my postings. "Inclusionists" always exclude someone somewhere sometime and just can't or won't admit it.
Simonn
Hello Simonn, Not all people
Hello Simonn,
Not all people are "exclusionists" but it is becoming stylish and common, even considered like yourself as "part of our human DNA to exclude." Everyone is doing it you say. Everyone? All?
That is some statement to say that "ALL people claiming to be "inclusionists" are liars.
First, you include everyone into the equation, lump and label all people as "exclusionists", while excluding the Good Samaritan. Of course we could decide to just get rid of that scripture reading and eliminate the notion that the Good Samaritan might be included as one who does not exclude, but includes. So this proves that not all people claiming to be "inclusionists" are liars. Unless you are saying that the Good Samaritan was a liar even though in truth he included the man who was excluded by everyone else?
Shouldn't we rather be like the Good Samaritan? Are there times when we were not like the Good Samaritan?
You say that "Even God, who on the Day of Judgment ..... excludes." Does He exclude? Rather, might it be that we choose to exclude or include ourselves into heaven or hell by our own free will?
As one of those who read and comment here regularly I might exclude an idea or concept such as yours, because it does not truly reflect the Christian truth as it has been given to me through discernment of the living Word, but I would not exclude the person because of a particular idea they may or may not have. That to me would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Excluding the baby with the bath water would be immoral and is also a sign of spiritual laziness.
I have a story of sexual
I have a story of sexual abuse returning yours.
Steve Theisen (an ex-SNAP officer in the Midwest) has accused Sister Mary Philip (nee Josephine) Schmitz of “repeatedly keeping [him] after class at a Dubuque [Iowa] parish school, laying on top of him, and tongue-kissing him” when he was her student. He has been found credible by an independent investigator, but to no avail. Josephine (she’s retaken her baptismal name since abusing Steve) and her Sisters of St. Francis of the Holy Family (ironic?) have fought off his every attempt at justice (lost personnel records, unremembering witnesses, the whole schmeer).
Do you, Colkoch, encourage making every effort to bring Josephine and her ilk (an estimated 8,000 nuns) to book for sexual abuse of youngsters in their charge?
I’d like to think you’re as serious about punishing abusing nuns as abusing priests. I hope you are.
Ken
Absolutely with no
Absolutely with no exceptions.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
Are you not aware that some
Are you not aware that some Eastern Catholic Churches united with Rome do have married clergy? In other words, the Catholic Church has had (since forever) married clergy in its ranks. Your implication that “letting in” married Anglican clergy is something novel is ... well, it’s wrong.
What Eastern/Western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy both have in common—100% in common—are all-male clergy and unmarried (and celibate) bishops. If either of these were to change it would be East and West moving in lockstep—both together, not either alone.
Is there any realistic prospect of that happening?
No way! No how!
Stop whining, srmiller, and get on with your praying!
Joe536
Let me jump in here. With
Let me jump in here.
With a downsurge in the number of White Catholics in the USA and, at the same time, an upsurge in Catholics of Color, it is strange that Women Priests is looking for only white women to ordain.
Weren’t those two white women made priests in St. Louis, MO, 67 and 69 years old, so is Women Priests scouring even nursing homes in its search for white candidates? Would any convent take those two old hens if they were to apply for admission to the monastic life? And if they are too old to be nuns, why are they not too old to be priests?
Women Priests is screwy (at the very least) and racist (at the very most). It has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with religion.
It’s time to change the leadership of Women Priests or shut it down!
Sabithah
All these response posts
All these response posts don't listen to what's being said. What has been brought forth is the SELCTIVENESS of the excommunications and its mis-use.
The motives behind the actions are exposed. No recent excommunications have been disapproved, non-concurred have they? Unless you tell me they don't need a higher concurrance, as they are local actions, punishments.
Dear Dennis: If you had been
Dear Dennis:
If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed me in this conversation already. That said let me make one point.
Sr. Joan puts words in the mouth of the Pope that slant what he said about Anglican unity.
She said: “The pope, we’re told, warned the Anglicans not to split over their internal controversies about homosexuality and the ordination of women bishops.”
But he said: “We cannot and must not intervene immediately in their discussions [at Lambeth]; we respect their own responsibility and it is our hope that schisms and new breaks can be avoided, and that a responsible solution will be found given our times, but also in fidelity to the Gospel. These two things must go together.”
Delivered aboard his recent flight to Australia, it was a prepared answer to a question submitted in advance.
(The full text of what the Pope said is accessible at Zenit.org, 14 July 2008. Zenit is “a non-profit international news agency ... [whose] objective is to inform about the ‘world seen from Rome,’ with professionalism and faithfulness to the truth.”)
Other Vatican voices (Cardinals Walter Kasper and Ivan Dias, both official visitors at the Lambeth Conference) and the Patriarchs of key Eastern Orthodox Churches have made it pretty darn clear that the gender drift of Anglicanism is a deal-breaker.
In a word, the "and not us" of Sr. Joan’s argument depends upon a skewed "why them". We must demand of her better than this.
Simonn
Simonn~ You wrote: "If you
Simonn~ You wrote: "If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed me in this conversation already". My mistake, I am sorry.
Sure, Colkoch, TAC did leave
Sure, Colkoch, TAC did leave the Anglican Communion of its own volition (way back in the early 90s), but reread my post and see that I am talking about the Church of England’s Anglo-Catholics, not TAC. The A-Cs are forced, by recent synod vote, to leave the Church of England in order to remain true to their convictions.
Not only did that synod vote excommunicate them, but a Church of England once proudly calling itself “a broad and diverse church” is neither so broad nor so diverse anymore through this excommunication.
Now you don’t raise a stink about it because (let’s face it) the Anglo-Catholics are not your kind of Christian so you could care less. And, I don’t doubt, you think of yourself as inclusive, but like all inclusives you can and do exclude.
By the way, those 10 million people you make reference to represent white flight from the U.S. Catholic Church, right? But the loss has been fully compensated for by growth from immigrants, chiefly Hispanic, right? And the Catholic Church crisis we keep hearing and reading about is essentially a white crisis, right?
God in His infinite wisdom has seen fit, so it would seem, to let the center of His Catholic Church shift increasingly to the Global South. And, as a result, we can expect more white flight, right?
Simonn
Simonn, your racist attitude
Simonn, your racist attitude is really showing through here.
First, 10 million ex-catholics is in error, it is 10% of the US population, which is approx. 30 million ex-catholics. Had you checked the facts you would have discovered that.
Second, the 30 million is a diverse group in which the ethnic mix roughly
parallels the ethnic mix of catholicism in the US. Again if you had checked
your facts, you would have discovered that as well.
Third, it is interesting that you do not mention that the leadership of the
catholic church is still 99%+ causasian, which BTW is a less offensive way of
referring to that particular demographic group. It also blows a gaping hole in your argument.
Fourth, which immigrants are you speaking of? The immigration demographic into the US, both legal and illegal, is a very diverse mix of all faiths and nationalities. Again, if you had checked the facts.
Racism is blind to the truth, blind to factual evidence. Racism by its nature is exclusive. Racism, in any form, is hate. Hate in any form is antithema to the teachings of Christ. Racism in any form violates the teachings of the Catholic (and Anglican) church as well.
History is filled with instances of almost unimaginable atrocity and violence committed by "the faithful" acting "in the name of THEIR God", but in reality acting in the name of "bigotry" and "hate". Hate is always exclusive, love is always inclusive.
You are probably correct about one thing though, while I do not know him/her personally, I would suspect that colkoch is somewhat exclusive ... exclusive of hateful, bigotted people.
Sorry col55, the 10 million
Sorry col55, the 10 million thing is my mistake. The sad thing is I know better and I repeated it twice. Must be wishful thinking. :)
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
Simonn I'm not quite sure
Simonn I'm not quite sure how you see the concept of formal excommunication. The Anglican Catholics were not formally excommunicated. I'm aware of the fact they were put in a position in which they feel to comply with women clergy would put them in conflict with what they see as scriptural truth.
In more ways than I can elaborate I sympathise with them. It's never easy to deal with the fact the Church you love has taken stands which force you to choose to be inside or outside of it. It doesn't matter what end of the theological spectrum one is on, that is a hard and sorrowful decision. If you think for one minute I take great satisfaction in what is happening in the Anglican church, you are wrong.
I also think your understanding of the global south needs a little more work. The exodus from Catholicism in South America is accelerating at a pace which is outstripping the North. What do you call that Brown flight?
I wouldn't call it brown flight anymore than I call the 10 million who have left in the US a white flight. It's a flight of cradle Catholics leaving the church of their birth. In the US they are being replaced by another wave of Catholic immigrants. No differeant than the wave of Eastern European Catholics who came after the wave of Irish Catholics. Now the wave is Hispanic Catholics. I see this as an economically driven influx just like all the others before this one. I do not see it as a racial issue.
In the South they are not being replaced by a wave of immigrants, and so their statistics are more likely to reflect the truth of their sensus fidelum in their particular countries. You bet I look to the South for leadership. The South can't delude themselves that everything is hunkey dorey. Immigrants aren't refilling their churches. Their losses are permanent, and many solutions to the reasons for the exodus on both continents will come from Southern leadership. So I agree with you that the Spirit is moving in the South, but not for the reasons you see.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
For reliable empirical data
For reliable empirical data re: national and international religious affiliation see:
http://pewforum.org
The continuing revelation of God in the CHANGES affecting all religious faiths and denominations are truly wonderful. What a pity to miss it all in righteous dogma.
Love your blog spot, Col!
God's peace to you,
e+
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." (John 20:21)
Being new to the Catholic
Being new to the Catholic faith, but not new to the degradation of women, I really am confused as to why the male priest's are so intimidated that they are afraid of having a female priest. I have read the Bible throughly and found no scripture whatsoever stating that women could not serve as priest's. The only fact that was stated was that the priest should be a descendant of Aaron. I personally think all the nuns should go on strike. From what I have seen from the nuns at our church, the priest's wouldn't last a week without them. I hope that the day will come when all of us are truly equal and it isn't just a word thrown out when the homily is read. I look forward to a female priest.
To ceej: Congratulations on
To ceej:
Congratulations on coming home to the Catholic faith.
Unfortunately, you have not been apprised of the fact that the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ. Catholic priests are not intimidated and or afraid of having a female priest. It is impossible for a woman to be one; women cannot be the bridegroom of the Bride of Christ.
Your attitude concerning nuns going on strike is so callous and un-Christ like. However, any priest who needs help in carrying out duties in his parish can always find good, holy women who attend daily Mass to voluntarily help in any area needed.
You can stop looking forward to having a female priest in the Catholic Church. It isn't going to happen!
God bless you!
J. C. Tzos
Huh? "...women cannot be the
Huh? "...women cannot be the bridegroom of the Bride of Christ." Neither can men. Christ is the bridegroom of the Bride of Christ.
But the priest stands in
But the priest stands in 'persona Christi' in the sacraments, and is called to be an 'alter Christus' at all times.
Based on the words of
Based on the words of Christ, Christ is in the bread and wine. Where does it say that a man other than Christ himself is ever Christ?
WHO is Christ? Dear Marie,
WHO is Christ?
Dear Marie, Eucharistic theology honors the Present Christ as both Christ 'Himself' (in your terms) AND the world-made-new in Christ. The words you seek are in virtually all the letters of Paul, who tries to struggle with the amazing fact of Christ with and in us.
The great mystery of salvation celebrated in the resurrection meal that we call the Holy Communion or, more appropriately, the Eucharist is a 'joyful thanksgiving' for the sharing of this new life in Christ.
The references to life-in-Christ for Christians and our constitution as the "Body of Christ" are so many and so beautiful but I refer you only to these few:
1 Corinthians 6.15:
'Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?'
1 Corinthians 10.16-17:
'The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.'
Galatians 2.20:
'... and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.'
And, of course, in the grandest letter, Romans:
Romans 5.19-6.8 [union with Christ]; Romans 6.6-16 [dying & living in/with Christ]; and especially, Romans 12.5: "so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another."
Then there's Romans 13.14: ['putting on' Christ]
The great and very compassionate gift of Christ present in the Eucharist is too wonderful to lock in the closed space of exclusion, n'est pas?
God's peace,
Elaine+
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." (John 20:21)
Yes, of course, we are all
Yes, of course, we are all members of Christ. However, that does not carry any weight with those who feel that only men can preside at Mass.
Marie, it says so in the
Marie, it says so in the Catechism. You know, part of the deposit of Faith. Keep it up and jolenecasa will be calling you a protestant too. Oops, I forgot, you are a protestant. :)
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
You must mean where it says,
You must mean where it says, "the Holy Spirit enables them to act in the person of Christ the head, for the service of all the members of the Church.13 The ordained minister is, as it were, an 'icon' of Christ the priest." (paragraph 1142)
You know I'll point out that there's a difference between acting and being and between icon and the actual thing, right? :-)
As well you should, but that
As well you should, but that may also be getting close to relativism in the minds of some people. :)
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
This brought me such a good
This brought me such a good laugh today! Thanks, col.
Numbers 18:1 the sons of
Numbers 18:1 the sons of Aaron's house, and his father's house. The Old Testament priesthood was a pre-figurement of the new, and was restricted to men. Jesus, who broke social convention constantly, did not change this in appointing the Apostles (although this Jewish practice of only priests and not priestesses was a break from the broader social convention of the time). Further, Paul attests to the male only priesthood, as do the Early Church Fathers.
And where did you find the verse allowing it?
Let me pose to you another
Let me pose to you another "problem of conscience," Dennis.
You condemn the Catholic Church as "an organization that discriminates against women on a massive scale," but did you notice Roman Catholic Womenpriests last weekend sponsored its 26th, 27th, and 28th ordination of women to the priesthood in the USA, out of which 28 of 28 are white women? All-white or pass-for-white?
Don't you think a good case can be made for Womenpriests as a White Supremacy outfit?
Joe536
Joe536 If you look at
Joe536
If you look at catholic congregations all over the world, how many non-white or non-hispanic are in them?
Using your logic, dont you think a good case can be made for the catholic church as white supremacy or hispanic supremacy outfit?
Obviously Joe536 has no
Obviously Joe536 has no problem with the concept or possibility that the Roman Catholic Church is a 'male supremicist' agency?
Umm, no. The Church is
Umm, no. The Church is strong and growing through out the Third world. Nigeria and India are competing to be the new Ireland (as far as exporting priests).
HT, what's happening in
HT, what's happening in Africa and to some entent in certain areas of India, is not happening in South America. So not all the third world is enjoying a Catholic explosion.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
You are correct, however,
You are correct, however, until the number of exports causes the demographic distribution to shift past the 51% meridian, they really do not qualify for nomination for the title of " ____ supremecy".
In the Church as a whole, I
In the Church as a whole, I believe 'caucasians' have a very slim majority, if that. The Church is growing faster in "non-white" areas. It is a sever stretch to call the Church white supremecist.
RCWP, however, if based on demographics could be accuse of ageism and racism (possibly sexism, but I know that they are actually able to challenge that one, they have men playing along under their umbrella as well)
My problem with the RCWP is
My problem with the RCWP is that it's demographics are probably skewed by intellectual elitism, as in the necessity to have advanced theological degrees for ordination. They don't seem to have advanced beyond the given understanding of the priesthood as a function of greater theological educaton.
Jesus didn't send out brainiacs or well educated disciples. He sent out disciples who were of the people. Unlike the Temple Priests and pharisees, they were not separated from their people by advanced education in Jewish doctine and didn't need to use their knowledge of the Law to undergird their authority to teach and preach.
It's unfortunate that what was good enough for Jesus is no longer good enough for our priesthood--male or female. It doesn't take an advanced degree to learn how to say Mass or effectively minister to people.
If the RCWP changed their formation requirements, I suspect you'd see a corresponding change in the demographics. I suspect they won't because they want their formation requirements to be seen as credible. Too bad they didn't use a different definition of credible.
I actually don't see where more of the same old thing actually fosters meaningful change. But then my issue is the way the clerical system is currently constituted in terms of authority and discernment of the Holy Spirit. Keeping the same elitist system, and only changing the gender, isn't really going to address what I see at the fundamental disconnect between the clergy and the laity.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
Your post got me thinking
Your post got me thinking how often I have taken a little downtime in parish moments to consider who in the room the people would choose to be their priest if they had the choice. Often enough (although not really where I am right now) it's been not-the-priest-who-is, but the priest who isn't.
Colkoch, "They don't seem to
Colkoch,
"They don't seem to have advanced beyond the given understanding of the priesthood as a function of greater theological educaton."
I am going to admit that I have some ambivalent feelings here. I don't know enough about the organization to know if this is a fair statement or not. It may be a glass ceiling thing and they feel the need to say that their candidates are as equally well prepared as most male ordination candidates.
But--particularly in other demoninations--I see all sorts of folks getting pastoral credentials by going to "theology" school. And some of them are in the right spot and some of them are just wearing their cloak du jour. I have a friend who has a Masters in Business and is in theology school. I know of nurses who went back to become pastors, so they assumably have a BS in nursing. I know of people who are sprouting pastoral credentials and their main background seems to be former membership in a harsh life--drugging, motorcycle gang, whatever. I'm not even sure they had a post-high school education. Now I'm not trying to paint anyone with the broad brush--Road to Damascus experiences are valid.
But pastor use to equal some verifiable degree of learnedness.
But pastors are a lot like docs and nurses and therapists. To be effecitve you have to be able to marry your knowledge with some compassion and if you are only their to redeem your own life experience, your pastorate may say more about co-dependency than anything else.
But throughout the denominations we see REAL examples of women in pastorates that do demonstrate that powerful marriage of knowledge, scriptural knowledge, compassion and caring. Here we are lucky to be blessed by Rev. Dr. Elaine McCoy and I think Rev. Kathleen Jefferts-Schiori demonstrates it. So does Sr. Joan Chittister.
But when you are at the leading edge of new movement, it is easy to get painted as one-dimensional. Women's libbers as "bra burners" or lesbians or whatever.
So I would be happy to hear more about the pastoral notions of these womenpriests. But I never heard a word Jefferts-Schiori said or wrote UNTIL she became a bishop though it is a sure bet that she was doing all manner of significant works before she got there.
So I guess I am saying that until we have functioning women priests, we won't be able to fully appreciate what they will bring to the pastorate though our experiences with women pastors of other denominations would suggest that we will see benefits.
I think we will too, but I
I think we will too, but I also think there will never never be enough candidates who can afford eight years of training. I don't now and never have thought that it was necessary to demand eight years of higher education for the priesthood.
Somewhere on another thread a poster made the point that this kind of closed off seminary training facillitates an over connection to one's fellow students and the priesthood itself, and that this over identification makes it really easy to let one's 'brothers' slide, to keep it in the clerical family. I happen to think that's a heck of an insight. Right now RCWP doesn't have a real seminary system in the traditonal sense. I hope it stays that way.
Again, I mentioned in the first post that my real issue is the clerical system and all it's trappings. On a level that I really can't articulate, I find do not connect with the RCWP movement or approach to women's ordination. I much more connect with the idea of women's ministry that Clarissa Pinkola Estes talks about in her article this week. There is an authentic women's spirituality and it does not need to be dressed in the men's version. It's authenticity stands on it's own merits, and it's legitimately powerful and sacramental.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
"My problem with the RCWP is
"My problem with the RCWP is that it's demographics are probably skewed by intellectual elitism, as in the necessity to have advanced theological degrees for ordination. They don't seem to have advanced beyond the given understanding of the priesthood as a function of greater theological educaton."
I am myself a bit of an anti-academic, not that I am not capable in that field, but I question the high value placed on it in general and particularly in study for the priesthood (my childhood heroes include such unlikely priests as St John Vianney and St Joseph of Cupertino).
I do wonder if a completely mistaken notion of what a priest is (or ought to be, for me the ideal always seems more real) is not a major part in their issues. There are a number of good books on the Catholic priesthood which I would recommend to these ladies (all save the last to anyone discerning whether they are called to the priesthood): "The Priest Is Not His Own", Archbishop Sheen; "The Priest in Union With Christ", Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, OP; and "Dignity and Duties of the Priest" St Alphonsus Liguori.* I do wish I could remember what I had read prior to discovering these that made them seem to be stating the obvious, but alas, I cannot.
The basis of the priesthood is (in theology and ought to be in reality) holiness. The priest must be wholly united to Christ, the priest-victim, that he (the priest) becomes himself a victim for the salvation of others. "So we have a mutilated concept of our priesthood, if we envisage it apart from making ourselves victims in the prolongation of the Incarnation" (+Sheen)
What the WP movement in general seems to be after is not this ideal priesthood, the participation in the priesthood of our High Priest, but the mutilated version of the priesthood based on power and control. This is one of the reasons I pity them, rather than loathe them. If they knew what the Christian priesthood is, I doubt they could separate themselves from His Church.
*While I recommend Dignity & Duties, I do not think that young discerners or those prone to scrupulosity ought to read this great work without prior approval and careful supervision by their Spiritual Director.
I agree with you HT. My
I agree with you HT. My childhood heroes were St. Francis and St. John Boscoe. While I realize St. Francis never took orders, his concept of ministering to the people of God was not based in academic theology.
I'm glad you used the description 'mutilated priesthood based on power and control'. I agree whole heartedly that the foundation for a priest should be based in holiness. Not withstanding that we would probably disagree somewhat on what constituted holiness.
I'll have to check out Dignity and Duties.
PS, on another thread you asked me about the influence of the cult of Mithra and it's possible influence on the early Church. After the long delay in updating comments I couldn't find the post. Sorry.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
I would be more than happy
I would be more than happy to “Work this over,” AnnieO, if you would be kind enough to write, in plain English, what “this” is.
I have neither time nor inclination to untangle feminist gobbledygook.
Simonn