There is a great post over at an interesting First Things blog called Evangel about the recent resignation of the Lutheran bishopette in Germany. One of the biggest reasons I find for why there should be no women in the episcopate can be found in the kind of women who seek what they see as a position of power (rather than servanthood and sacrifice) and what they do to revealed Word of God in the process. Here are some excerpts of a guest post by Rev. Dr. Holger Sonntag about the resignation of Dr. Margot Käßmann, who was the head of the EKiD and the bishop of the largest territorial Lutheran church in Germany recently. My bolds:
What caused her to resign? On February 20, at 11 p.m., the Saturday after Ash Wednesday, she had been caught running a red light while intoxicated. The police established her blood alcohol content as .154%. While her fellow council members assured her of their ongoing trust in her in a telephone conference on February 23, but left the final decision up to her, she resigned nonetheless on the following day. As she put it once, she wanted her “personal power to convince” to be “unhampered.” And this public moral failure was apparently seen by her as a major hindrance to such authenticity.
The reactions in Germany range from dismay (not so much about her drunk driving, but about her resignation) to respecting her integrity. Many saw her as a dynamic, honest leader who made the church credible again in the eyes of non-members. Others, however, saw her as a divisive figure who felt constrained to comment on any number of social and political issues, even without (or against) God’s clear Word, and who personalized her office as probably no one had done before in recent history.
What can be said about this major event? First of all, it was perhaps providential that she resigned from her offices on the day of St. Matthias, the man who was chosen to replace Judas.
-snip-
Perhaps it was because she did not hold her office legitimately, Dr. Käßmann made it all about herself: her views, her positions, her opinions, but also her integrity, her moral attitude. In a variation of Jesus’ saying, one could say: Those who live by authenticity will die by authenticity. Behind her Ego striving for societal stardom, the office and its actual tasks withered away. Since she did not allow the office to limit and focus her self, the office in turn then also offered her no support in times of need. Accordingly, the publicized media commentary asked only: with her moral stature and claim, can she still continue after such a public moral failure? The question was no longer asked, not even in the churches she led: does her teaching agree with God’s Word and the Lutheran confessions?
-snip-
Public opinion, fostered by the likes of Margot Käßmann, on the other hand, is naturally Donatist: moral credibility and authenticity is all it knows, both in political and ecclesiastical leaders (is this the hidden self-righteousness of the “little guy”?). And, of course, morality is here not measured by God’s Word, but by what everybody thinks is good, right, and salutary. Being for homosexual pastors, for divorce (Dr. Käßmann is divorced), and against war is then good, progressive, courageous, and loving. Being against women’s ordination, divorce, and for war, on the other hand, is bad, medieval, and discriminating against women. This type of moralism, that is actually a characteristic of unbelievers, should not hold sway in the church. Here the first question should be: what is a teacher’s teaching? Does it agree with God’s Word? Moralism, to be sure, spurred many a reform movement before Luther (just think of John Wycliffe, but also Erasmus of Rotterdam), but it typically missed the doctrinal boat entirely. The corrupt life of a minister or bishop became the focal point of popular outrage; no one cared about his teachings. Pastors experience this even today: deny baptismal regeneration, and no one even notices; move the baptismal font by one inch, and you’re in hell. On the contrary, Luther emphasized: life is earth; doctrine is heaven (cf. Am. Ed., vol. 27:41-42). This is to say: every Christian’s life is going to be messy because we are and remain sinners, although we strive by the power of the Holy Spirit to be more and more holy in our lives as well. Yet our doctrine comes from God. It is not only perfect; it makes us perfect because it is God’s light brining us the light of the world, Jesus Christ. Tolerance ought to be extended to a messy life, not to messy doctrine. Because with doctrine, heaven and hell are at stake.
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!
Sorry, don't see where this has anything to do with the debate over women's bishops.
Many of her faults mentioned in the piece could be leveled against any number of Catholic bishops.
We have seen far too many Catholic bishops resign over the pedophilia scandal and the efforts by some bishops to cover it up.
If only some of these Catholic bishops had the integrity of this bishop – she rightly saw her teaching authority compromised by the incident and resigned.
I meant to say in the aove post that we have seen far too few Catholic bishops resign over the pedophilia cover-up.
Are we all Donatists now?
I know I have to fight against the temptation to Donatism myself. And I sure do love congruence—that is when I meet a Catholic bishop who not only publicly upholds the faith as handed down by the Apostles, but lives it, thus creating an oasis of heaven around himself and exuding a palpable holiness and divine love. And yes! They exist!
But Dave—give me some evidence of Catholic bishops who have publicly advocated for divorce, for homosexual unions, for deliberately substituting authenticity and sincerity for the Magisterium of the Church.
Maybe some have indicated such leanings through subtle signals or in autobiographies after retirement (Bishop Weakland comes to mind–now that's an eponymous name if I ever saw one) but engaging in a possible cover-up of sexual abuse is not the same thing as monkeying around with the sacrament of marriage or deciding to chuck out inconvenient notions of sin and the need for redemption and substitute "God loves us just as we are and let's be inclusive and fly the rainbow flag).
With due respect, I think you are confusing the issue at hand…which is that a bishop can not make up the faith as he goes along, but must faithfully serve the faith as handed down by the Apostles so that subsequent generations receive it intact. Show me a woman bishop who has not chucked out most of the apostolic faith.
Now of course there is the matter of whether one can really understand the Apostolic faith, despite PhDs galore, without having the will to obey it. (John 7:17).
So I do want obedient bishops who preach the true faith who are not hypocrites and evil men hiding behind lip service to the Church's teaching. But lip service and hypocrisy is better than making up the faith as we go along, "as long as we are sincere." Tolerance for messy lives, not messy doctrine. Amen.
Deborah
Deborah
This is a great quote from Chesterton as to why heresy is worse than sin. Sin is still very bad. "I confess to almighty God to you my brothers and sisters…" is how we start Mass.
Tremendous Trifles, by G.K. Chesterton {_trtrxxx} 8092
XXXIV The Diabolist
"I am becoming orthodox," I said, "because I have come, rightly or wrongly, after stretching my brain till it bursts, to the old belief that heresy is worse even than sin. An error is more menacing than a crime, for an error begets crimes. An Imperialist is worse than a pirate. For an Imperialist keeps a school for pirates; he teaches piracy disinterestedly and without an adequate salary. A Free Lover is worse than a profligate. For a profligate is serious and reckless even in his shortest love; while a Free Lover is cautious and irresponsible even in his longest devotion. I hate modern doubt because it is dangerous."
God Bless Brian Taber
Odd that drunkeness of the minister was one of those faults that 4th C. Africans, Catholics and Donatists, hurled at each others' heads (probably rightly in all cases), and Augustine used it specifically as not disqualifying the holiness of the sacraments, if they were administered validly, and by a valid minister! Plus ca change!
Thank you, Jesus, for ex opere operato!
Seriously, can anyone produce an example of a good woman who believes herself a priest?
From anecdotal evidence from Anglican acquaintances, such ladies are uniformly appalling, and seem to be the worst sort of caricatures – they actually fit the stereotype.
I seem to recall one who might be the exception – a female minister in England who's pro-life (again, very much the exception): she campaigns against aborting those with birth defects. She herself was born with a hare lip.
There was a gal I used to call "Father Jennifer" (not to her face, but still as a term of affection) because I admired the prayerful way she did the liturgy and her evangelical/charismatic style fidelity to Scripture. She was a priest at an Anglican Church that has since joined the Anglican Network in Canada.
She would have had differing ideas on a number of things such as Apostolic Succession etc.
Also, the female Anglican Bishop in Canada, Victoria Matthews did not strike me as all that bad back in the days when I was an evangelical and didn't even know about Apostolic Succession, the notion of sacrifice in the mass, etc. She came, I believe, from the evangelical stream, not the liberal stream as I recall.
But generally most of the women I have encountered who call themselves priests are like brick outhouses of feminism, short-haired, sensible shoed (not that there's anything wrong with that, wear them myself) people who like to talk about "the sacred," use inclusive language and detest patriarchy or hierarchy of any kind, except don't you dare brook their authority.
Deborah
Deborah
I am friends with a slew of female Episcopal priests; I don't think the bad behavior of a German Lutheran bishop has any more to do with their ministry than Bishop Spong's has to do with mine. Their preaching and pastoral care and their parish leadership are above the average around these parts and they love our Lord. (believe me, I know plenty of other types, too) Their ministry is not why I pray for us to be reunited with the Catholic Church and it is not even the reason I am compelled to leave the Episcopal Church; in fact, I wish they would join me in becoming Catholic even though I recognize they would have much more to give up than I do.
I hope that anti-women's ordination is not even in the top ten of reasons for Anglicans to join the ordinariate; it certainly is not a huge selling point in our time and culture. Please, let's be for the Gospel, for the Church, for Our Blessed Mother, for Christ, even for the Holy Father. Let's leave the mess(es) behind and not turn keep looking back lest we become pillars of salt.
I heartily agree with you CA-EP. For approximately 20 of my last years in the ECUSA I met many female priests. I found all of them competent and with a heart for the Lord. I have received spiritual counsel from female priests and have received spiritual direction from a female priest in training. Not once did I ever have any hesitation regarding the advice I was given. I did not leave the ECUSA because of the issue of female priests. As a matter of fact, I have met more incompetent male priests and church workers than female ones.
BTW-even before there was a priest shortage, over 80% of those who work and minister in a paid capacity in the Catholic Church are female. Today, many of these fine ladies have graduate degrees.
The comment, "One of the biggest reasons I find for why there should be no women in the episcopate can be found in the kind of women who seek what they see as a position of power (rather than servanthood and sacrifice) and what they do to revealed Word of God in the process" is very sexist and insulting to any woman in ministry. The same could be said about many men. Such absurd comments should not be apart of the dialogue on this site. I honestly think an apology/clarification is appropriate.
Clark
California Episcopal Priest and Clark,
Hmmmmmm. I am prepared to apologize for being snarky and for making wide generalizations. So, I am sorry. But I do not apologize for the post, which I think draws some extremely valuable points about Donatism, moralism and other issues.
And God forbid that anyone should flee ECUSA or the Anglican Church merely because they are sexist, or disgruntled or "disaffected" somehow. (LOL) I agree that our reasons for joining the Catholic Church should be our love for the Gospel, the Church, the Blessed Mother, Christ and the Holy Father.
But sadly, because perhaps even the majority of Roman Catholics in North America would support women's ordination because they confuse the ordained priesthood with other forms of ministry, I think we can, without bitterness, or resorting to name-calling or snarkiness of my part, emphasize the reasons why women cannot be priests. Or bishops. Good, sound, firm, doctrinal reasons. And those arguments have to be made because people are NOT being effectively catechized. And when people show up charging those who don't think women can possibly make just as "good priests as men are sexist and insulting to women in ministry" well, that comes across to me as a typical liberal tactic to shut down debate in favor of political correctness.
I am sure there are many women who make far better, more spiritually sensitive spiritual directors than men. If I were ever sick, there's a female elder from the Baptist Church I used to go to who has a healing gift and other supernatural gifts and I would want her by my side. I have no doubt about women's gifts in the prophetic and administrative arena, as well as gifts as teachers, theologians and other forms of ministry. But not as priests. Not as stand-ins for Christ in the Eucharist.
Frankly, I find the 80 per cent figure of those who work and minister in a paid capacity in the Catholic Church being women a troubling sign of the feminization of the Church. Where are the men? Are they staying home or playing golf because women are running the show?
There is debate and ferment in the Catholic Church about the distinction between lay ministry and the priesthood and the priest shortage has exacerbated the problem. I am not sure the drift to having paid lay ministers to augment a shrinking number of vocations is the right solution. If someone sees they can earn more money and be married to boot and minister in the Catholic Church, why bother becoming a priest? Why is a priest special?
Clark, can you explain what a priest is? Is a minister the same as a priest? Are men and women interchangeable?
Do you believe in the complementarity of the sexes or unisex?
There is a lot of debate within the Church about lay and ordained and where the line is between the priesthood we all share as believers through our baptism and ordained ministry.
What makes me sad is how so many well-intentioned Catholics seem to cave to feminists and feel a sense of relief when they can offer a woman a key job to prove in their minds they are not sexist.
I think there needs to be a lot more fatherly firmness out there. Not disgruntledness or disaffectedness, but good, strong, solid, apologetics for why there can be no women priests or bishops. Because I see too many people just ducking this issue and being mealy-mouthed and worried about being called sexist, etc.
Sorry, but while this is not the reason for us to become Catholic, it is still important, it is not one of those optional little things that one can chuck out the window. And frankly, a woman acting as a priest in the mass does just by virtue of her sex do an injustice to the Word of God. It is the wrong imagery. It's as if a man were to dress up as the Blessed Virgin Mary or to dress up as the Bride of Christ if there were a liturgy devoted to her.
Deborah-
I think you may have missed my original point. I have repeatedly said in my posts that there is a certain edge and anger sometimes presented by various contributors. I’m sorry, but I understood your primary post as such an example. If you believe I am wrong, please accept my apology. I want to believe that instead fueling the fires of discord, the contributors of this site would focus on matters that build up the soul. There are several pieces on this site that, unfortunately, have lacked charity. The point of my comment was not to rehash the various arguments about women priests, but to address uncharitable comments in your original remarks.
Perhaps a brief story will help. When I began attending graduate theology school I had my guard up to anything that was suspect to my conservative views. I remember posting my own snarky comment in a discussion. Later, when I was speaking with the professor she asked me why I felt threatened by our readings. As we talked about it, we agreed that I did not have to agree, but the exercise was to respond to the question as presented. I can’t tell you the freedom this gave me. In graduate school we have had incredible discussions regarding women priests, heresy, the Magesterium and all sorts of subjects that readers of this site would appreciate. Sometimes discussions were heated, but only once did someone ever act in an uncharitable way. I am thankful for the experience of being able to express my views while listening to those I might not agree with. Our Catholic faith affirms our freedom to explore controversial issues, but always in charity.
Asking that we show greater charity towards those we disagree with is kind of like a praying for our enemies type of thing, instead of being the one waving the pitchfork. (It’s a metaphor, not an accusation)J
The 80% figure comes from the highly acclaimed “DeLambo Report” that is frequently cited in USCCB documents. For a well reasoned explanation of why the 80% figure exists, I would suggest reading ‘Co-Workers in the Vineyard of the Lord.” This book is the definitive book regarding lay ministry, specifically Lay Ecclesial Ministry, in the Catholic Church. Again, it is very well reasoned. There is extensive documentation regarding why this figure exists, which has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of “feminization” of the Church. For instance, lower salaries in these positions typically mean that men, as the historical primary “breadwinner” in the family, cannot afford to take a lower paying job in the church. As a second family income, women are able to take these positions.
If you compare a Protestant Church with a Catholic Church you will find that Protestants have larger paid staffs. This comes from the historical ethos within the Catholic Church as a result of being an immigrant church of the labor class. We could not afford to pay people to do things, so we have always had a large volunteer base. Now, the Catholic Church is wealthy, but the trait of volunteerism persists.
I apologize if you felt I was not clear about the role of priests, men and women; I only meant to use those terms very generically. And yes, I am quite familiar with the difference between the royal priesthood and the ordained priesthood.
Deborah, I enjoy your contributions and insights. If you look at my past posts you will see that I have consistently asked all contributors to increase the charity and decrease the rhetoric.
If you think a private e-mail is necessary you can locate me as the contact person in the Forum section under Hampton Roads, Virginia.
Blessings,
Clark
The reason that the Catholic Church doesn't have women bishops or priests is because it doesn't have the authority to allow it. It can't happen any more than a man can give birth, so it doesn't. Any speculation on the fitness of women to hold the priesthood, is nothing more than speculation, and befitting a faith that holds Mary in such high regard.
That being said, IMO, the reason why women get such a bad rap is precisely because most of the women who become priests and bishops in this day and age "have something to prove" and thus aren't doing it with pure motives. But women aren't alone in this. Before women's ordination in the Anglican Church, liberals went into priesthood with the motive to reform the Anglican Church in their own fragmented image. The fragmenting of the Anglican Church is the result.
A woman's weaknesses and shortcomings can just be any man's but the main reason why ordaining women as priests and bishops is an innovation is that its premise goes against tradition and the truth about the equal and complementary dignity of man and woman.
It's interesting that Erasmus should be mentioned.
After all, the counter-reformation seemed to accept the validity of his (often mis-informed) criticisms. And, in many ways, the clergy he (and by implication the council fathers of Trent) criticised, were objectively undeserving of censure.
Just because they failed to live up to what was essentially the Gregorian monastic ascetical ideal (I'm not just referring to celibacy here) doesn't mean that they were corrupt!
Now, as anyone who has experienced the depths of counter-reformation spirituality in the confines of a tridentine seminary would know, there is a high degree of moralism involved in counter-reformation spirituality (and ecclesiastical disciplinary reform). I would argue that the results of this have not been happy.
Perhaps the mode of priestly formation employed in the ordinariates will cross-fertilise with diocesan formation programmes.
Deborah,
I apologize. I was quick to criticize your post, without acknowledging the good work you personally are doing in writing for The Anglo-Catholic. You have my gratitude, also, for being part of the TAC which has done the heavy lifting which is benefiting all of us Catholic-oriented Anglicans.
That said, I sense that there is a cultural divide between TAC folk and many of us who are yet in TEC or converted directly to the Catholic Church from TEC. Women's ordination is something we have become used to and we have experienced women priests as spiritual sisters — spiritual mothers for some– and as our friends and allies amidst the chaos that TEC has become. That chaos makes the Catholic Church shine all the brighter as a beacon of truth and holiness while Protestantism is revealed as congenitally corrupt. But in that corruptness, their orders– their ministries– have borne as least some good fruit; I am not completely convinced that my orders bestowed by a thoroughly Protestant TEC bishop are valid either. To paraphrase a Catholic bishop I saw quoted in First Things: "Why not call them priests? They are as much priests as the rest of them are." That would include me.
I accept that women cannot be Catholic priests because they cannot represent Christ at the altar. I accept it because the Church teaches it and I will not apologize for it. But I do not want us — we Anglicans that are converting as groups and individually to the Church– to be characterized as anti-women or anti-women's ordination any more than I want to be characterized as anti-homosexual or anti-same sex marriage. To do so misses the point. (A corollary is our preference for the Church to be known as pro-life, not anti-abortion.)
Let our TEC and ACiC brothers and sisters know us by the love we have for Christ and for the Church, not by how much we can disdain the practices of the ecclesial bodies we leave behind. There are a lot of Episcopalians and other Protestants and secular folk out there that need evangelization. They need to see us full of hope and full of love. The enemy and those who are influenced by him will love to take our internal discussions and turn them around to make us and the Catholic Church appear to be "anti-woman", "anti-gay" and "anti-tolerance." Let's not give them the ammunition.
(My own wife — a Catholic– is turned off by the huge prominence given to anti-WO rhetoric in traditionalist Anglican and Episcopal circles. I keep telling her it really isn't the number one issue on their minds– along with gays. I really want to believe that.)
God bless you, Deborah. Thank you for your hard work; your dedication and love for Christ and his Church show through. I admire your foray into farming, too!
Father Bill
Thank you, everyone, for your helpful comments. After all, we do not reject WO because of those women who have undergone Anglican ordination, but because we believe that WO is not Our Lord's will for his Church – after all, if it had been His Holy Mother would have been the perfect priest, certainly better than those rough fishermen and other oddbods He made His apostles. Our Lady, perfect image of the Church, teaches us by her peerless example that the vocation to be a Christian is most wonderful and excellent, and that, while some men will be sacramental icons of Our Lord in His sacrificial priesthood, we all are called to live as becomes saints.
And I now recall a book detailing the stories of Lutheran converts to Catholicism, several of whom had been women pastors, prior to realizing the truth about Our Lord's will for His Church.
A woman's weaknesses can be the same as a man's. The only reason why women priests and bishops is an unacceptable innovation for Catholics and the Orthodox is that it goes against the truth about the equal and complimentary dignity of man and woman.
Thank you Fr. Bill and Clark, for your thoughtful responses and for your correction!
Alas, I have fun being snarky and this is not the place for it. I will sincerely make an effort to behave myself and be more charitable.
And I totally agree with both of you that we have a need to be FOR something not against, to say "Yes" to Truth and Love, "Yes" to Jesus.
Thanks!
Deborah
Well Deborah i liked what you wrote and i don't think you should be PC ed into apologising because you expressed a strong opinion. All this sweetness and niceness can become rather boring. Many women are like many Jews they think as they discuss whereas many Gentile men work everything out in their mind before expressing an opinion. Just because you express a strong opinion doesn't mean you have come to your final conclusion on a topic. i personally like people who make general sweeping statements and hyperbole- it is what makes discussions invigorating and interesting. it is the arguing back and forth in which many people grow and develop their thoughts and ideas. Some of it is also temperament- you sound to me like you are sanguine- the melancholics will never get you but they could very well bore you to death. i don't know if you have been to any catholic bible studies- usually the most boring things ever- every one just listens and agrees with the leader especially if they are a priest or a nun- dull, dull, dull. One of the things i miss about the Jewish synagogue and Evangelical Anglicanism is the very invigorating discussions where people are free to argue and express their opinions without everyone getting upset and thinking you hate them because you disagree with them. Don't lose your sting Deborah for after all Deborah does mean Queen Bee in Hebrew.
Thank you, Athol. I am sanguine! With some choleric and yes, the melancholics drive me nuts. And I them, I'm sure.
And yes, sweetness and niceness can be rather boring.
But I do also want to be a good Christian, too, and most of the time I work at being more temperate even though it's surely not as much fun.
Also—as a largely undiscovered novelist, I know that conflict drives readers to turn and thus a certain level of conflict—not devolving into vitriol, but good heated debate—drives readers to blogs as well.
So I won't stop pushing the envelope a bit, but I'll watch for overly broad generalizations.
Deborah
(My own wife — a Catholic — is turned off by the huge prominence given to anti-WO rhetoric in traditionalist Anglican and Episcopal circles. I keep telling her it really isn’t the number one issue on their minds– along with gays. I really want to believe that.)
I am sorry to hear this. WO is an error, a total error, and a gross error. That is one of the "battle fronts" of orthodoxy vs. heresy today, and it needs to be defended vigorously — if necessarily, offensively (pun intended). If your wife believes and professes all that the Catholic Church professes to be revelaed by God — including the impossibility of WO — she would be anything but "turned off" by the deserved and just "huge prominence" that the issue has achieved in conservative Catholic-inclined Anglican circles.
The difficulty for those of us who want to defend against this error is to make sure we have our arguments lined up. One of the key deficiencies in the average Catholic or Anglican's understanding is of what the Eucharist is. So many ideas have crept in to erode the notion of sacrifice, altar, the connection between Old and New Testament concerning the priesthood and Christ's priesthood and his once and for all oblation. And we don't like talking about sin either and consequently our need for redemption.
There are ways to do this that are not anti-woman, just as there are ways to argue against gay 'marriage' without the dreadful recounting of sexually transmitted diseases or other things that really do make people seem homophobic, even if the stats are true.
Striving against a heretical group we don't hear of often, the Kollyridians, Epiphanius comments:
"If God had so arranged things that the priesthood would be entrusted to women and that they would exercise a canonical role in the Church, first of all, before any other woman in the New Testament, He would have granted the priesthood to Mary, who was so honored that she bore the universal King in her womb."
and it was not so…
~St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Adversus Haereses 79,3; PG 42, 744 A-B. op cit. Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, pg. 127-28.
Fr. Chris
Dear Deborah:
Do not be too quick to apologize. Clark and California Episcopal Priest seem to be trying to push you into a particularly type of political correctness – the "say only positive, never negative things" type. It is a position rooted in relativism and falatious "fundamental option" theology. It is sometimes essential to closely examine and discuss what we are against in order to fully and correctly understand what we are for. Take a look at the ecumenical counsels and the creeds for example.
Abortion was mentioned. It is always a wickedly vicious, murderous evil. Yes, I am pro-life; but I am also anti abortion. We must not let the "pro-choice" crowd slither out from under a rightful condemnation by using the 'seamless garment" dodge ( some may be surprised to learn that even Cardinal Bernadine, creator of the phrase, came to condemn its abuse by abortion advocates.) After all, the only "choice" the "pro-choice" people bring to the issue is the death choice. They clearly have no part in the life choice that is already there. They are, in fact, always: Death Choosers.
It is not always easy to proclaim – or to hear proclaimed – the truths of Christianity; but it is essential that we not be mealymouthed or lukewarm when we do proclaim them. Certainly, there will be many times in counseling, in consoling, in teaching when we will want to emphasize God's mercy and forgiveness and His understanding of the human condition; but in doing so we must not do it in such a way that we deny or ignore that He is also a God of righteousness and justice. It is this misguided desire to turn Christianity into a "feel good" religion that has brought about much of the corruption and decline which so afflicts Christianity today.
Am I OPPOSED to the ordination of women? Yes, Absolutely! It undermines not only the efficacy of the sacramental order but its very existence and thereby works toward the destruction of the Catholic Church itself. No matter how well intentioned and how talented may be many of the women "priests", their ministry tears down, it does not build up, the Body of Christ, the Church. That the Holy Spirit may use them as instruments of His Grace in particular instances does not in the least change that fact.
Stay strong dear Deborah, that's the way we like you to be.
Fr. Berry, et al.–
You folks think I am politically correct? Wait a few weeks, or days, till after I am deposed and please write Bishop Bruno to tell him about my political correctness. WTH, go ahead and do it now. He's smart enough to figure out who I am.
I am only pointing out that trash talking is not the optimal way to get the truth across. Or maybe it is the optimal way and some of us have a different vocation in the Church. You be the Jesuits and we'll be the Franciscans.
I'll trash talk about all sorts of things with members of my team, but I don't think it has a place in the public proclamation. And this is the closest thing to a public proclamation the soon to be established Ordinariate has.
Mr. Tighe, folks can be put off by even a seeming overemphasis on one aspect of the Faith; that doesn't make them less a Christian. In my reference to my wife, she was standing in for the less zealous folk to whom we also must appeal. I'll leave it at that.
Your brother in Christ,
Fr. Bill
Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus as Fr. Chadwick would say. Each of us has his/her temperament which influences the different ways we evangelize. Said some have rough edges? Perhaps. Wrong? I don't think so. I once could not understand why a fellow priest, Catholic to the bone, could be so patient when in dealing with women 'priests'. Then I realized that he had the God given grace to discuss, without compromising the Truth, with them the vital matters being dealt with in TEC. This while reminding them that such matters would not be issues if we had not 'ordained' woman to the priesthood to begin with! I have grown much since those days, meaning I can, and do, follow the Church's teachings (priesthood, abortion, etc) not allowing my 'being against' interfere with my evangelizing others. I believe this is what CA Episcopal Priest means in his postings. I guess St. Paul was right in the manner he preached in the square to those who believed in many God's yet erected a stand for the unknown one. That I may preach accordingly. Some of us have 'spunk'. Some of us are milder. All of us are useful. Me, I tend to navigate between the two! Man, the Ordinariate will be great!
1. That it is bad women who become bishops (post) and priests (comments) is an empirical claim. To perform the act of calling this claim into question by means of presenting evidence, such as testimony of having dealt with good women priests, is healthy, normal behavior, and not political correctness.
Those who wish to defend the claim should present the evidence that CA-EP and Clark did not in fact have these positive experiences. Or they should present the evidence that shows that these positive experiences are not representative.
2. I'm a guy. When I perform the act of receiving Holy Communion from a male priest, whose male body uniquely represents Christ in symbol-based anti-WO arguments, does my male body get taken up into a ritual language that expresses an endorsement of same-sex coupling? Or does my male body get re-written, as it were, into a female body so that I can play my part as Bride of Christ? If my body can be re-written that way, then why can't the bodies of women be similarly re-written so that they can play Bridegroom? Or is it only the male body that is capable of such versatility? If so, why and how? Should anti-WO people drop the whole symbolism thing? Anti-WO relied on other arguments at other points in history. Maybe those arguments are better?
I write in good faith. The same-sex symbolism thing really does confuse me. If it need not be so, just say why.
James Dominic James:
What an odd argument. I have never heard any orthodox person claim that the priest at the altar becomes in some way the "Bride of Christ." The "Icon of Christ", yes; it is the Church which is His Bride. Sounds to me like you have picked up on some feminist straw man argument – created to be knocked down.
Father Berry, I think James Dominic James is referring to the male recipient of communion being in a symbolic way a member of the Bride of Christ—if the priest at the altar is the Bridegroom.
I think this is a good question that deserves a good, respectful apologetic, because we in the Church are referred to as the Bride of Christ, yet at the same time, the Body of Christ.
Maybe someone needs to explain the nuptial mystery of Christ and His Church.
Then there is also how all of us–male and female–are by virtue of our Baptism part of the priesthood of believers.
I think many of the arguments used to defend male-only ordination have not been satisfactorily explained or assembled into one place. Many people accept it without being able to defend it.
So let's see if someone might be able to put a post up that would help James Dominic James understand these mysteries. It would do the whole Church a big service.
Deborah;
You are, course, correct that James Dominic James was referring to a male recipient of communion and not to the priest at the altar.
Part of the problem comes in confusing the symbolic corporate "personality" of the Church with that of its constituent members. Different language and symbols are used, for very good reasons, when discussing the relationship of Christ to us as individual persons and to the Church as a whole
A vary rough analogy is the profound difference of speaking – in English at least – of a ship as "she." While the "she" which is the ship includes the crew, we would never – especially in earlier days when the crew (at least its formal members) were exclusively male – refer to the crew or to crewmen as "shes." The idea of the ship, like the idea of the Church, encompasses more than merely its constituent members. With regard to the Church, that idea – among other things – includes both the internal dynamic of the body of Church members and the relationship of that body of members, both corporately and individually, with Christ. The whole perceived gender problem is, I repeat, a feminist straw man argument – created to be knocked down.
The corporate reality of the Church should not be confused with the individuals who comprise it.
Deborah and Fr. Berry,
Thanks for addressing this. Here is what I think I've learned:
When the thing to be symbolized is corporate and female (the Church as Bride), both males and females can symbolize it, and when the thing to be symbolized is individual and male (Christ as Bridegroom), only males can symbolize it. And my questions above did not take into account the different rules that apply to symbolizing properly, which depend upon whether the thing to be symbolized is corporate or individual.
For the sake of mutual understanding:
Fr. Berry writes: The whole perceived gender problem is, I repeat, a feminist straw man argument – created to be knocked down.
That may be so, but my knowledge of "[t]he whole perceived gender problem" comes only from conservative writers, typically ones who are gaga for von Balthasar, not that that's something to be ashamed of. If I could be half as cultured as von Balthasar, my life would be very rich indeed.
Thanks again.
As a follow up to the above, I want to say that I agree that it is important that we address the question of women ordination with a serious statement of our position and reasons; however I do not think that the "problem" of gender confusion raised by JDJ is a real "problem" that merits much in the way of a response – it is merely an argument hoping to create a problem. Of course, I hope and assume that such is not the intention of JDJ. As long as there are those who think that they somehow have a right to ordination – that it is somehow a question of personal "justice" and not something wholly within the competence of the Church – we are going to see all kinds of odd claims and "problems" spring up.