Women priests

There are always two sides of this question. The first side has been adequately covered by the teaching of the Church. A brief outline might look like this:

a.) "The Sacraments were instituted by Christ" - All of the sacraments are radically contingent upon history, upon things that were actually said and done. Christianity is a historical religion, and the Church's worship consistently draws its form and meaning, not only from the years of the earthly Jesus' life, but from the unique and priviledged Apostolic experience. The Bible is an important source of sacramental form in this respect--many Protestant traditions continue to view it as their primary reason for restricting priesthood/Church leadership to men.

b.) Sacramental nature of Ordination heightens the significance of symbol and sign within its form. It is nearly impossible to overemphasize the importance that the celebrant of the Eucharistic sacrifice bear the image of Christ and thus be male. This only makes sense in a sacramental context.

My addendum- Typical response: "If the priest needs to look like Jesus, why mustn't he also be a Jewish carpenter aged 32 (?) years with a beard and brown hair?" The obvious implication is that gender is essential to the identity of the person, more than race, age, career, or appearance. I don't think this is far-fetched; in fact, I think this belongs to priviledged, epistemologically default belief.

c.)(On gender roles) NOT Catholic doctine: "Both genders are equal but one gender is more equal than the other." ALSO NOT Catholic doctrine: "Both genders are equal." The second maxim is empty and means nothing. It literally has no content; it begs to be filled with all varieties of interpretations, from the meaningless to the obsessive pathological.

CATHOLIC doctrine: "Men and women have equal dignity" - a fundamentally religious claim because all dignity is a result of being a child of God. Men and women share equally in the love of God and have no advantage over each other with respect to his Kingdom. Being that everything else in our faith is contingent upon this Kingdom, including all human worth, this implies an equality that is far more radical and shocking than anything secularism has to offer.

'Nature' by definition (for a Catholic) comes from God and is thus good; ergo, the natural differences between men and women are good. Women are endowed with an intellectual soul every bit as powerful (and terrifying at its heights) as men, and thus it is counter to nature to prevent them from using this intellect in a way that glorifies God. Similarly, all that women are given with respect to motherhood is good, and it is counter-natural to slander or devalue motherhood--among the holiest of God's creations, for it shares creation with his children.

Ergo, it is sinful to suggest that "motherhood" or "domestic womanhood" signifies anything other than a position of highest holiness, honor, courage, and yes, social influence and visibility, and, yes, power.

Ergo, it is also sinful to suggest that any leadership roles which men assume belongs to them as a priviledge or special advantage over women, rather than as a duty assigned and complementary to all of the grand contributions of mothers (and all women) to society.

Again, it makes no sense to speak of equality of the sexes, because there is no criteria of evaluation in this regard. All talk of unequal "power" or "influence" neglects to define these terms. The best evaluation at this point is an understand that (a) historically, women have been mistreated, and even now they are often treated as chattel, a practise which the world must mobilize to end, and (b) men and women have equal dignity and distinct gifts given to them for the good of the whole world, and must understand this state as a symbiotic, complementary relationship. (c) Do not fight shadowy demon puppets of inequality when real abuse occurs elsewhere, and allow and respect distinct gender roles in the model of the Holy Family.

-----------------------------------

The other side of the women priest question

Basic thesis: Anyone who moves towards Ordination in a manner holy and true and open to God will not object when prevented from doing so from outside him/herself. If an objection persists, it signifies disfunction in the subject's vocation, attitude towards priesthood, and towards his/her faith.

Quick note: 'disfunction' here is not a term of judgement. For any member of the faithful, this disfunction will exist at some level, and it is an outgrowth of original sin. It must be fought with grace.

Line of reasoning:

"Why do I want to be a priest?"

Bad answers-- "I want to be holier than others." "I want to make decisions in the Church." "I like the clothes." "I don't want to get married/bad luck with women." "I'm gay and need to escape the pressure of relationships." "I want to prove that I'm valuable."

No, no, no! Let's try something a little more constructive.

(a) (My attempt). I do not have very much to offer. I am not particularly talented or clever; I play no instruments; "I have never been eloquent, neither in the past, nor recently, nor now that you have spoken to your servant; but I am slow of speech and tongue." (Ex 4:10) But I do believe that God has given me certain gifts. If he will have me, I will place myself at his disposal and that of the Church, his Bride. I will do whatever necessary to serve God and his children, in any way I may.

(b) (Imitation of Christ). "Lord, thou knowest what is best; let this or that be according as thou wilt. Give what thou wilt, so much as thou wilt, when thou wilt. Do with me as thou knowest best, and as shall be most to thine honor... When could it be evil when thou wert near? I had rather be poor for thy sake than rich without thee. I choose rather to be a pilgrim upon the earth with thee, than without thee to possess heaven. Where thou art, there is heaven; and where thout art not, behold there death and hell."

(c) (Mary Moody Emerson). "Let me be a blot on this fair world, the obscurest and the lonliest sufferer, with one proviso--that I know it to be his His agency. I will love Him though He shed frost and darkness on every way of mine."

(Examples B and C taken from William James, "Varieties of Religious Experience")

Take note: None of the above mention the priesthood. HENCE, I say the follow: I do NOT "want" to be a priest, though I feel pitched headlong towards that state by the Lord whom I love. I want to serve, and whatever happens--if I lose both of my hands in an accident, if I find myself to be gay, if I am only asked to leave by my bishop, I WILL LEAVE, for there are an infinite number of ways to please God, and I need not insist on this one.

Ergo--I propose that the proper approach to discerning the priesthood will not complain at being denied.

Thus I find the women priests question to be moot from the perspective of faith.

----------------------------------------------------------

What is Catholicism?

Everything we do, say, and think--towards others, ourselves, God, or with no object--stands between us and God as a portion of a relationship between two PEOPLE. Our God is Personal, he is a Person, and Catholicism is not anything so much as our encounter with Him.

Hence the following:

Catholicism is not about following rules, but how do we show our love for God by breaking them? Catholicism is not about eliminating poverty, but how do we show our love for God by permitting oppression?

" feeling good about yourself, " hating God's gift of life? " Popes and bishops, " mocking them? " Acadamia, " being ignorant? " piety, " disdaining it?

Often new "theologies" like "liberation theology" can be gifts from God, not as new understandings of our faith, but rather as prophecy, warning us of some neglect of which we are guilty.

Ecclectic Catholicism: Allow! Permit! Participate! Include! Do! Nothing belongs to the treasure of Catholic history that we can legitimately exclude. No writing that ever glorified God loses its shine, and cannot withstand repitition. God lets the sun rise for us every day, over and over again--why can we not continue any holy practice that has been established for love of him?

However, this means something significant: Let us love the medieval ages, but then let us also take innovation seriously, because the medieval ages were themselves innovative. We thank the Medievals for giving us the gift of Eucharistic adoration; let us then be open to other gifts as they come! Let us obey Paul, "Test everything retain what is good," but let us not forget that we have not yet seen everything that is good.

-----------------------------------------------------

The lives of the Saints are the "higher" magisterium than the documents of the Vatican. The documents are the bread, water, and medicine--but the lives of the saints are a banquet of grace of every variety, the hallway of stained glass where Christ's light shines through. I say, let us have our Bible, then our Catechism, and then our book of the Lives of the Saints! Would these not be our Command, Explanation, and Example?

----------------------------------------------------------

What is religion, really? What is secularism? And what is the secularist view of religion? What needs to happen?

Religion is not any thing. It is a collective word for our convenience. Being over-scrupulous, there are perhaps as many things we call "religions" as there are people. That is because, on the individual level, religion will occupy different realms, or all, or none.

Consider the driver of a car. For one, "religion" may be the engine, which drives him but is kept scrupulously hidden beneath the hood. For another, religion may be the rear-view mirror and the windshields, which help him/her to see, but which do not compel any action. For a third, religion may be the tire treads which keep the car afloat without much thought; for another, it may be the sweet-smelling air freshener; for another, it may be car phone; for a precious few, it might be the WHOLE CAR. For many more, it is none.

Religion functions very differently for individuals even within the same religious tradition. For some, Catholicism is a private club; for others, a support group; for others, a rock concert; for others, a secret society; for others, a game where points are measured in "grace"; for others, like myself, it is that frienship with God and everyone that I've already described.

Sometimes religiousity can be have more in common between two people of different traditions than between two of the same tradition. I posit that, in some ways (ex: focus on family, and a sense of communal relationship with all of the dead and living together) Mormon religiousity CAN resemble Catholic religiousity. I know off-hand that converts between the two creeds are relatively common--perhaps this is why. I think it also could help illustrate how Christianity spread so well through the Greek world (which had a highly personalistic theological system) and why Christianity has so much difficulty dialoguing with Islam (First, its shatteredness, and second, it much stronger emphasis on a Law, whereas in Christianity the Person precedes the Law.)

Religious pluralism ("I believe in all religions") Cannot Work for this reason. The assumption, that religions are interchangeable systems that can be switched around like parts of a machine, is wrong and very irresponsible (anthropologically speaking).

-------------------------------------------------

The secular project is not an attack on religion but a direct competition with it. It does not say "religion is wrong" but rather that "secularism can give the world everything that religion can and do it in more exciting and varied ways."

The symbol of this project is Ghandi. Ghandi is a darling to secularists because he was the Most Christian Non-Christian. Further, he was a religious pluralist.

It is a little bit strange, but Ghandi is, right now, the Church's strongest enemy in the fight against secularism. His saintliness appears to starry-eyed youngesters to make Christianity non-unique and unimportant.

I believe that the charge of the new evanglization is to reclaim this distinctiveness--to proclaim DOMINUS IESUS in a way that no other way of living can compete with. Our greatest ally in this battle is the Church Triumphant. Let the saints show this weary world a holiness which it has forgotten; an indefatigable flow of "God guide me, save me, move me!" with the enthusiasm that makes Ghandi's coolness look like secular lethargy.

And another point; and this is important.

At this point, every time the Church makes a concession to the demands of secularists, she sacrifices every unique appeal she has to the outsider. The more secular the Church becomes, the less unique, the less special, the less INTERESTING she becomes to "unbiased onlookers." If the Church allows married priests, or women priests, or abandons clerics, or builds ugly churches, or stops talking about the Devil, it will be the victory of Ghandi and secularism. The Church will risk drowning in a sea of sameness. She will lose vocations and adherents and become empty.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Stupid Conservative Catholics

Keep that mind wide open, because this could offend some people dear to me here. It certainly offends me, because it is directed as much to me as to the milieu of unnamed targets. Just let's not take it too seriously.

I think that a lot of Conservative/Orthodox Catholics I meet are stupid. Fortunately for them and for me, they are most often correct in virtually all of their judgements. That is because one blessed element of conservative Catholicism is distrusting one's own novel ideas in favor of the wisdom of the Church. And again fortunately, the most influential pastors of the Church, not least of which the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger, wield terrifying intellect.

The problem with being consistently stupidly correct (in this manner) is the easy confounding of consistent correctness with genius.

The result is a fantasy mandate to speak in _any_ manner to _anyone_, so long as the teachings of the Church are more-or-less repeated (or documents linked-to). No attempt whatever to contextualize the beliefs of faith is made or deemed important, and the result is that the words are rejected or unheard, or worse, they do more damage.

If a pearl were given to a swine, what would the swine do? Swallow it, of course, and after passing it through its belly, it leaves the pearl on the ground, covered in a thick shell of feces.

When Father so-and-so tells the crying child at school that "No, your dog isn't in heaven--animals don't have souls!!!" he leaves a hot steaming pile whenever he speaks. When sister so-and-so says, "liberation theology was condemned by the Church because it's communist!" she makes the pearl of Church teaching on liberation theology VERY hard to find among the pig-&%$t.

So many of the secularists I know reject religion because the ONLY religion they know is the same shallow pig-&%$t either they or their parents were taught in an earlier age. Catholics cannot afford to behave in this manner anymore. YES, apologetics and catechesis need to be distinctive, subversive, powerful, tough, and FANATICALLY Catholic--but darnitall, they ALSO need to be contextualized, compassionate, insightful, and all the while simple.

Secularists are prepared for the Gospel

Secularists my age have the faith-age of a pre-adolescent (an expression I'm borrowing from an article out of the Tablet). But they have the seed! They want to be Catholic but they don't know what Catholicism is!

Their image of Christianity is a brutal, mechanistic, simple-minded, closed-in, archaic institution. And let me tell you, if they reject it, they're right to do so!

But the grace is there. Look, let me show you a conversation I've had _Several Times_:

Me: I'm a seminarian. Secularist: What's that? Me: I'm studying for the priesthood. Sec.: Oh. What sect? Me: (Winces at the word 'sect') Catholic. Sec.: Woah. So, does that mean you're, like, not going to get married? Me: Yes. Sec.: Wow; that's really something. Me: Why do you say that? Sec.: It's just that--I don't know. Me: What don't you know? Sec: It's just--hard to imagine someone doing that now. Me: Why do you think I am? Sec: I guess you must really, uh, believe, or something...

I´ve had similar conversations like this with three people, none of whom knew each other. Religious or not, people my age are fascinated by celibacy. Don't you see? Ghandi secularism is a smoke-screen! Catholicism IS still radical. It DOES still offer the world something it needs, something it can't get anywhere else: GOD.

Imagine I told the secularist, "I want to be a priest because... I want to be holier than others, I want to make decisions in the Church, I like the clothes, I don't want to get married/bad luck with women, I'm gay and need to escape the pressure of relationships, I want to prove that I'm valuable."

I can almost gaurantee (knowing the secularist like a wayward brother) that the reaction would be Dissapointment, Shock, Disapproval, and Distress.

Why?

Because the secularist is prepared for the Gospel. He/she knows what authentic faith IS; but he/she doesn't see it in Catholicism because secularists are always being lied to! Everywhere they go, people attack Catholicism, or else they defend it poorly (with pig droppings).

-------------------------------------------------

I don't like Life Teen

I think it's a bait-and-switch operation. But more on that later; I've spent too much time here as it is.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), August 10, 2003

Answers

FORMATTING CORRECTIONS.

Catholicism is not about following rules, but how do we show our love for God by breaking them?

Catholicism is not about eliminating poverty, but how do we show our love for God by permitting oppression?

" feeling good about yourself, " hating God's gift of life?

" Popes and bishops, " mocking them?

" Acadamia, " being ignorant?

" piety, " disdaining it?

-----------------------------------

Dialogue with a Secularist:

Me: I'm a seminarian.
Secularist: What's that?
Me: I'm studying for the priesthood.
Sec: Oh. What sect?
Me: (Winces at the word 'sect') Catholic.
Sec: Woah. So, does that mean you're, like, not going to get married?
Me: Yes.
Sec: Wow; that's really something.
Me: Why do you say that?
Sec: It's just that--I don't know.
Me: What don't you know?
Sec: It's just--hard to imagine someone doing that now.
Me: Why do you think I am?
Sec: I guess you must really, uh, believe, or something...

Sorry about that. Greenspun is tough to work with sometimes.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), August 10, 2003.

-- _ (_@_._), August 11, 2003.

You said:

"At this point, every time the Church makes a concession to the demands of secularists, she sacrifices every unique appeal she has to the outsider. **The more secular the Church becomes, the less unique, the less special, the less INTERESTING she becomes to "unbiased onlookers."** "

Interesting, but an highly demagogical line of reasoning:

What has kept keep the Christianity afloat all those centuries was the remarkable capacity of the Holy Mother Church to adapt Her message (not Her Dogmas, or Her Main Priciples) to the signs and exigences of the times ...

Besides i don 't saw any lack of appeal or uniqueness post Vatican II nor i think that 'per se' *secularism* as you call him is such a bad idea(l) since the *real* question is if the 'cost' of beeing too 'formal' can be justifiable ... (one could argue that Jesus gave the answer when he exemped converts from the need to be circumcised (which was obligatory according to the OT)

Two final notes ...

a) If i have to choose between a great,and beautiful, Cathedral in the middle of nowhere, or in the middle of the desert, or a humble church (a former shop) in a Shopping Mall i'd prefer the second; you know why ? because the Truth, the *beauty* is a mather of Faith not a matter of *special efects* ...

b) I find trully remarkable and a sign of the Holy presence of the Holy Spirit that beeing attacked and pressured so much, from left (ultra-modernists) and rigth (ultra-conservatives) the Holy Church has been capable of following its course in such a coherent and yet *modern* way ...

God Bless us all

-- António Meireles (am@epandemic.com), August 12, 2003.

Hi Ant.,

Just a quick note--I don't think we disagree.

With care,

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), August 13, 2003.

Thanks SKoobouy great thoughts, for once we agree! God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 13, 2003.