The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Louise Akers: Silenced or louder than ever?
by Joan Chittister on Sep. 09, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionHistory is a dangerous thing. Somebody ought to be reviewing some of it carefully now -- for the sake of the church, if nothing else. There may be a lesson to be learned here.
In Richard Attenborough's film, "Gandhi," one scene of Gandhi's life and the revolt of Indian nationalists against British control stands out above all others. Intent on defying new British taxes on Indian salt, Gandhi leads a march to the sea to collect the salt water that would enable poor Indians to make their own.
It was an ugly sight.
As they march in silent ranks to the shore, the Indians are met head on by hundreds and hundreds of British colonial police -- many of them Indians themselves -- clubs and muskets in hand, who systematically beat every rank of unarmed demonstrators to the ground. But the ranks never stop coming. One after another they come, row after row of them. Beating after beating after beating, they walk over one another in ordered formation into the butt of British rifles, certain of their personhood, sure of their cause, convinced of its right.
The salt boycott -- the boycott that began with thousands of defenseless peasants risking beatings, imprisonment and even death -- led, in the end, to the Indian declaration of independence from England.
Gandhi was clear about the purpose of nonviolent resistance. It would expose the injustice of the oppressor and claim the conscience of the world.
The lesson is a sobering one: Suppression does not end revolution; it breeds it. It solves nothing.
The kind of animal resistance the world saw directed at the voiceless in Gandhi's Salt March is, in most of the world, over. At the same time, women -- and those who support the pursuits of women for recognition as full human beings -- are getting a taste of the same kind of opposition. It is equally implacable. It is at least as powerful. It is universal. Fundamentalist extremists of all ilk and their interpretations of religion everywhere claim one way or another that God is sexist. With orthodoxy as an excuse and God as an argument, women are denied Torah study and rabbinates in some strains of Judaism. They are denied public access and made captives of their husbands in other places in the name of the Koran. They are condemned as lesser beings in behalf of the Hindu Vedas. They are forbidden ordination -- with everything that implies, including karma and financial support -- in defense of Buddhism. They are made consumers of the faith rather than ministers of the faith in various Christian denominations.
Most of all they, too, are silenced so that the rest of the community can not hear their concerns, examine their suppositions.
But rather than discouraging those -- men as well as women -- who argue for the rights and presence of women everywhere, suppression is simply alerting people everywhere that there is no possible justification, on the grounds of femaleness alone, for the elimination of women from public service, from public participation, from adult agency, from the holy halls of religious discipleship.
And that's where concern for Cincinnati Sister of Charity Louise Akers comes in. But that's where concern for the church comes in, too.
Sr. Louise has been dismissed by Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk from all diocesan positions and/or conferences on Catholic soil in the archdiocese of Cincinnati due to her support for the ordination of women in the Roman Catholic church. She was willing, she says, to leave the advisory board of the Women's Ordination Conference and to have her picture removed from their Web site. She was not willing to be forced to retract her support for the continued study of the theological foundation upon which the exclusion of women from Catholic ordination is based -- a clearly intellectually honest position.
As a result, Sr. Louise, recently recognized by the city of Cincinnati as one of its outstanding civic leaders and, ironically, coordinator of Cincinnati's Intercommunity Justice and Peace Center, will be denied access to the idea development arena of the Catholic community where she is obviously needed most.
Comments that followed the news story detailing the dismissal lamented "the loss of a voice like this" to the church.
But they're wrong. The church faces precisely the opposite problem, whether it realizes it or not.
Voices like this, voices that cry for justice, voices that point out the lacunae in the thinking of the theological community and are punished for their continuing pursuit of truth are not "lost." On the contrary. Those voices ring loud and clear around the globe for all the world to hear. One after another after another. And little by little, one silenced voice recruits ten, a hundred, a thousand, a society worth of others. All of them talking. All of them refusing to be silent.
If you think not, think Martin Luther or Ulrich Zwingli or John Calvin or Mary Ward or Mary MacKillop or John Cardinal Henry Newman or Teilhard de Chardin or Hans Kung. Think of any number of others without whom we would still be selling relics or teaching merit theology or refusing to allow women religious on the streets or rejecting the concept of the sensus fidelium or refusing to attend the weddings of our children in Protestant churches or disdaining to deny science, scientists, the movement of the sun and evolution.
The continued suppression of thinkers who call for the discussion and study of the role of women in church and society is not suppressing anything. In fact, more and more men and women are beginning to speak out about it. Which is where Sr. Louise and Archbishop Pilarczyk come in: Like the English, he has the power of the past on his side; like Gandhi, she has the power of the present and the promise of the future on hers.
The truth is that suppression of thought is more dangerous to the church than any sin the church has ever committed. It has not only driven people away, it has stunted its own development, diminished its credibility.
From where I stand, it may be time to forget power and theology, magisteriums and inquisitions for a while. Maybe we should just all sit down and, if history is not convincing enough, read the New Testament. Read the parables, in fact, in which Jesus talks about how to distinguish between right and wrong, good and bad, true and false. Matthew 13:30 may give us a clue. It reads, "Let both wheat and weeds grow up together till the harvest. At that time, I will tell the harvesters 'First, collect the weeds and tie them together to be burned. Then, gather the wheat and bring it to my barn.' "
Point: Let them all talk until, as a church searching under the impulse of the Spirit, we hear clearly where truth lies for us.
Not a bad idea, perhaps, for times such as these.
Benedictine Sr. Joan Chittister is a best-selling author and international lecturer on topics of justice, peace, human rights, women’s issues, and contemporary spirituality in the church and in society.
Recent Popes seem to wish to
Recent Popes seem to wish to use powerful & quick-acting pesticides (excommunications) on the unusual bugs in the Churchly garden.
The main difficulty with pesticides is that they kill indiscriminately & eventually will harm the garden itself.
Spiritus Christi Church in
Spiritus Christi Church in Rochester NY is a terrific example of the benefits that accrue when good people are excommunicated and thus able to shed the chains of a dying institution and instead live out the spiritual life more fully as Christ, Gandhi, Thich Nhat Hanh, the Dalai Lama, Joan Chittister, and many others teach it. May many more take similar courageous steps ASAP! The sooner the better for the wellbeing of both women and men all over the world.
Dear Ellen, You are right-you
Dear Ellen, You are right-you are a dying institution!
Wow. Fear seems to lace your
Wow. Fear seems to lace your words here. Unless I misunderstood you. I don't think the mighty voice of the Sister is a dying institution. It is time we had such candor and there will be those who simply cannot live under the light of truth. For those who are used to living in such a light, and accustomed to these rays of reality, change will be nothing more than a long awaited cleansing.
Peace.
Give me a break. A "dying
Give me a break. A "dying institution"??? According to who? You, because you don't agree with the Church's teachings? Have you ever seen how many hundreds of thousands of youth that attend World Youth Day? It is true that there are certain areas where the Church is waning, vocations specifically, the Church is far from a "dying institution". Jesus said that he would not let hell prevail over the Church. I think your words are exactly what he was talking about.
Jesus said that he would not
Jesus said that he would not let hell prevail over the Church.
Look out Rome.
Hold on People of God.
I second the writer's
I second the writer's suggestion. I think it best that the Chittisters and all like her simply leave the Catholic Church. Why continue to fight a battle which you won't win? The Chittisters of the Church have fought authority and official teaching for decades with little to no success. They must be exhausted by now. Since they are so unhappy with the Pope, the bishops, official doctrine, etc., I can't figure out why they continue to stay. I simply don't buy the line that they love the church and want to change it from within. Be as honest as Luther and Henry VIII and have the decency to officially declare yourselves finished with the Church of Rome and set up your own church.
Dear Pietro, It seems you
Dear Pietro,
It seems you are saying that you do not wish to live in a universal or catholic church. You only wish those who will cease current doctrine as a zealot in your catholic church. You only want the Church in Rome, yet Jesus was a Jew. He did not speak Latin and He certainly did not give the church the Roman structure. He was authoritative. The Roman way is authoritarian. The problem with all this is that you seem to want to base your doctrine on selective words of the past (your own form of relativism) and forget that the Holy Spirit will be with us until the end of time. He will not be solely with the clerics in Rome and elsewhere but he will be with the scientists that are disciplined and honest in their observation of nature, to the philosophers who seek to understand more truth and to the theologians who seek to understand more of the mind of God. It is the Church of Rome that is imploding upon itself not Catholicism. The sin is the failure to listen to the Holy Spirit and to ALL He/She speaks through.
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
I second the writer's
I second the writer's suggestion. I think it best that the Chittisters and all like her simply leave the Catholic Church. Why continue to fight a battle which you won't win? The Chittisters of the Church have fought authority and official teaching for decades with little to no success. They must be exhausted by now. Since they are so unhappy with the Pope, the bishops, official doctrine, etc., I can't figure out why they continue to stay. I simply don't buy the line that they love the church and want to change it from within. Be as honest as Luther and Henry VIII and have the decency to officially declare yourselves finished with the Church of Rome and set up your own church.
According to my count, the
According to my count, the papacy in this 21st century has used “pesticide” on 5 bishops, 4 priests, and 2 organizations in its church of 1 billion. The Episcopal Church, from 2006 to the present, has used “pesticide” (called “deposition”) on at least 3 bishops and over 100 priests in its church of 2 million. When it comes to debugging “a Churchly garden,” Kaythe, a nurturing female (Episcopalian Presiding Bishop Schori) has exterminated more pests than a patriarchal male (Roman Catholic Pope Benedict), and she has a far better per capita kill ratio.
How fitting that someone
How fitting that someone named "Gardener" sprays "pesticides" onto this conversation!
Name the excommunications in
Name the excommunications in the last years.
I bet you can't.
Give it a break. We're not idiots.
"If you think not, think
"If you think not, think Martin Luther or Ulrich Zwingli or John Calvin or Mary Ward or Mary MacKillop or John Cardinal Henry Newman or Teilard de Chardin or Hans Kung. Think of any number of others without whom we would still be selling relics or teaching merit theology or refusing to allow women religious on the streets or rejecting the concept of the sensus fidelium or refusing to attend the weddings of our children in Protestant churches or disdaining to deny science, scientists, the movement of the sun and evolution."
*Mary Ward, Bl. Mary MacKillop, and the soon to be Bl. John Cardinal Henry Newman are held up as models for the Catholic faithful. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin are not, while de Chardin and Kung hold ambiguous places. Lumping them together as similar examples seems odd, if not perverse.
*Holy Church has condemned the sale of relics since at least the Middle Ages, if not before. Therefore, your implication that we might still be selling them is misleading because we cannot "still" sell what was never permitted to be sold. What some misguided individuals did in the past cannot be attributed to Holy Church.
*"disdaining to deny" is a double-negative. One may disdain science, or deny science. "To disdain" means "to despise". If, therefore, we "would still be...disdaining [or despising] to deny science", it actually implies that we have always accepted science, not, as you appear to suggest, rejected it in some mythical dark past.
Dear Andrew1215: is this the
Dear Andrew1215: is this the best you could do? Nitpick?? You can choose to try and throw off the discussion with minor details but the overwhelming message that Sr. Joan is offering shines through. The hope, dignity and justice that will prevail (maybe not in my lifetime) in the name of Jesus can never be permanently sidetracked nor suppressed by Vatican bureaucrats and others more interested in preserving their positions in human religious institutions. Sr. Joan's most poignant words in her essay tell us to leave all the chattering and sit down to really read the New Testament. There we will (re)-discover the simple and complex message of Jesus and become aware of how far the church has strayed from the gospel message.
Dear barefootgrl, Nor in a
Dear barefootgrl, Nor in a thousand lifetimes!
Nitpick is it? He answered
Nitpick is it? He answered the question to give examples of foolish excommunications. And he did it quite well I might add.
Please!! ALL is HOLY...not
Please!! ALL is HOLY...not just the Church.
actually, all is not holy.
actually, all is not holy. the word holy means "utterly and completely different." this is why we use the word "holy" to describe our ineffable, incomprehensible, glorious, awesome God. that is why when we strive for holiness, what we are striving for is a union with the potter who can sanctify any piece of clay. holiness is, and only comes from God, and it is certainly not part of all--espeically where any evil or self-will exists.
i believe that it is a mentality like this--that all creatures are entitled to all things--including those things which are characteristic solely of God, which so greatly misguides women. i wonder if the Apostle thought he was "guided by the spirit" when he struck the priest coming to arrest Jesus? i wonder if Peter thought he was "guided by the spirit" when, out of his own misunderstanding, he informed Jesus that God the father's will certainly couldn't apply to Jesus as Jesus taught his apostles about his impending death?
Oh come on. I am not at all
Oh come on. I am not at all concerned here with parallel structure, or relic sales or double negatives. Let's address the topic at hand which is that women, like the voiceless in the Salt March, will continue to be present and keep coming and asking the hard questions. We will continue to ask, "why not" and will continue to take our lumps for it. So be it. Ms Akers has taken hers and is a great example for us all.
"What some misguided
"What some misguided individuals did in the past cannot be attributed to Holy Church."
You've got that right.
But don't forget, today's present is tomorrow's past.
After all, the future isn't what it used to be. What's more, it never was.
Think about it.
What might Cardinal Mary Smith, noted Church historian and member of the Curia be saying about us, a century from now?
"What might Cardinal Mary
"What might Cardinal Mary Smith, noted Church historian and member of the Curia be saying about us, a century from now?"
- nothing, considering that she won't exist in the Catholic church.
In reply to Pete the greek,
In reply to Pete the greek, that Cardinal Mary Smith won't exist in the Catholic Church, I think it is a definite possibility, as there is no doctrine that Cardinals have to be ordained clerics. There have been quite a number of Cardinals in the history of the Catholic Church who have been lay people, and who remained as lay people even when made Cardinal.
Dream on, Greg. Because
Dream on, Greg.
Because that's what it is...a big nightmare.
Do you really think we do not
Do you really think we do not traffic in relics? Two weeks ago we dedicated a church with a plethora of relics, from no less than 7 saints! I do not think they were provided graituously. They were sold.
Over 70
Brava!
Brava!
I hope what you say comes to
I hope what you say comes to pass that the voices will not be silenced. They were in Iran this election. They have been in China. They were in Afghanistan this election and even before. I really, really hope what you say comes to pass that the voices in the end, are not silenced but echo round the world to bring the change we need.
A very welcome comment, Joan.
A very welcome comment, Joan. Thank you
Comparing salt to the
Comparing salt to the Magisterium is a bit over the top...and where your movement seems to always try to take things. We seem to forget that we as Catholics swear allegience to the teachings of the Church and its Bishops! Can you tell me when it is ok to disbey the teachings and when must we adhere to them?
Women are no less human because they can't be priests no more than men are no less men because they can't bear children.
There are many issues that need to be addressed and needs our focus...inner city poverty, family and abortion...but I guess some would rather focus on themselves (But I guess you have forgot about Gandhi's teaching on self)
And it's precisely because
And it's precisely because women bear the children that they have been dehumanized and defined by the function of bearing and raising children.
Even in the construction of your sentence you say "woman are no less HUMAN because they can't be priests no more than men are no less MEN because they can't bear children." The implication is that the gender male is a step beyond general humanity and gives the dignity to the entirety of humanity.
Maybe that's why in places like Honduras, Iran, Afghanistan, and Northern Ireland it's women who are front in center in demanding HUMAN rights.
Dear Colkoch1, One cannot
Dear Colkoch1, One cannot talk about a more joyous occasion than the birth of one of God's new creations. It becomes sad soon after because in place of making certain that new Soul is nourished and grows in the Light of God it more often becomes modernized and struggles through to His/Her death. Most on this board continue to remark about Women being second class citizens. They are not and most of those making these remarks understand this is not the case. What is more dangerous are the statements about Jesus having blood brothers and children-great herisies both. Perhaps before spouting off one should say a prayer and ask God for guidance.
"And it's precisely because
"And it's precisely because women bear the children that they have been dehumanized and defined by the function of bearing and raising children."
How on earth does bearing a child dehumanize? Bearing and raising childre is mere function?
My mother raised 7. We grew up poor but knew each one of us was considered a gift from God.
My mother retained a feisty character and deep love of her faith. She is now 94 and her memory is playing up but at no stage would any one of us ever reduced her to being less than human nor simply a mother with no personality or independently thinking mind of her own.
Perhaps I should have phrased
Perhaps I should have phrased this differently. I was referencing the fact that women and children were legally considered male property until very recently in Western human history. There are many parts of the world in which this is still true. In my book being considered property is dehumanizing.
The designation as property was directly related to bearing children in that men could not state with certainty that any given child was actually theirs. This was critical in passing on family inheritance and is core to why adultery was, and in some places today, punishable by death.
Just because I enjoy a great deal of freedom as a woman and a mother, I haven't let that cloud my understanding that the vast majority of women on this planet do no share those same freedoms, nor the joys those freedoms bring.
Hamilton, have you forgotten
Hamilton, have you forgotten the meaning of Justice? That is what the whole issue is about and the Church teaches justice toward others but seems to stress justice toward those less fortunate than outrselves. To deprive a woman from the fullness of choice because she is a woman is not justice. And by the way, I beleive we do have a case of a man bearing a child recently here in the US.
"And by the way, I believe we
"And by the way, I believe we do have a case of a man bearing a child recently here in the US. Would you be knid enough to post the name of the medical journal, volume, and pages where this evemt was published. I believe there was a MOVIE recently with Danny Devito etc where the movie script described an event of a male bearing a child. I hope you were NOT alluding to a motion picture as the basis for your statement which I quoted above. Thanks for the MEDICAL information requested.
Actually, there was such a
Actually, there was such a case, but it involved an individual who had had a sex change operation, but who retained his/her internal female organs.
Catholics do not "swear
Catholics do not "swear allegience" to the teachings of the church and certainly not to the bishops. Catholics follow the teachings of Christ and the bishops are there to guide and teach, not rule. We do not follow for fear of retribution, but for love, just as Christ teaches.
The comment regarding the ability to bear children is misguided, in that there is a great deal of difference between a physical limitation (childbirth) and a cultural and historical one (women becoming priests).
There would be more teachers and guides available to address the other issues faced by the church if women were able to become priests. I find your lack of vision disturbing.
Thank you so much for
Thank you so much for reminding us that we swear allegiance not to the Bishops but to Jesus and the Gospels. The Church has been right often in the past--but it has also been so dreadfully wrong that any thinking, caring person cannot give over their heart and mind to a human institution that has shown itself capable of terrible/terrifying mistakes.-- I want to respect authority--but will never privelege clerics over Jesus. As a returning Catholic, I see the great tension between honoring tradition-- and also needing to look clearly at tradition that at one point supported slavery, looked the other way at the attempted extermination of the Jews, and destroyed native cultures in the name of Jesus. People like Sister Chittester have helped me fololow Jesus back to the Church I left at 12 because I could not tolerate, in conscience, the attitude towards women. Thank you Joan for sticking it out, and for helping those of us who left in disgust and despair remember that the people who fought against slavery--like the Indians who fought the salt tax-- walked a long and dangerous and worthwhile, Spirit-inspired road. But then, so did our God.
Ruah
we can argue about "cultural"
we can argue about "cultural" and "historical" mistakes all we want. but it seems to me that turning to the "physical limitation" of childbirth is the perfect solution to our problem.
unlike culture and history, rightly described as man-made, who shaped and created our bodies? almighty God. who ordained their functions and their ensuing roles? almighty God. unlike the fallible and misguided historical and cultural influences that men have over the world, the decision to give women the beautiful and precious gift of child-baring was made by a perfect, loving, infallible and almighty Creator--a decision incapable of scrutiny which leaves us with a concrete fact. this, it seems, should be the last thing that we dismiss as a mere "physical limitation". our "physical limitations" as prescribed by God should be the very first thing we turn to when discerning our call. to treat our biological roles as mere happenstance, to dismiss our individually prescribed genders as anything less than a purposeful decision by God demeans his knowledge, his ability to choose rightly, and most importantly, supplants His will with our own.
Please, sisters, I beg you to say a Rosary to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. to pray to Martha, Mary Magdalene, the Holy Mother of God, Miriam, and all the other good, strong women of the Bible. Pray that they will lead you by example. Pray not that "women gain equal status" -- a statement of self-will because you have determined what "equal status" is, but only that "God's will be done." pray to be "meek" "humble" and "lowly of heart". Pray for the seven fruits of the Holy Spirit, namely piety and fear of the Lord.
i will be praying for you.
Anonymous: "The comment
Anonymous: "The comment regarding the ability to bear children is misguided, in that there is a great deal of difference between a physical limitation (childbirth) and a cultural and historical one (women becoming priests)."
No, the reason why women cannot become priests is a physical one, it is because they are female. It would be like trying to baptize a dog, consecrate apple juice, or marry two men (though the last one they keep trying). You can only perform these sacraments if you have the right matter (also, form and intention). A non-Catholic told me that it's like the Catholics believe in magic, and to some extent, that is a true comparison -- we believe that something *happens* when these sacraments are performed, that a person's original and personal sins are forgiven when they are baptized, that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, that a couple are bonded together forever in Holy Matrimony. To be ordained as a priest is not just hiring someone for a job, it is a fundamental, indelible mark on the person's soul. The most wicked, defrocked, pedophilic homosexual priest is a priest forever, even in Hell. But women cannot become priests because they are not the right matter, they are not men.
I told an Episcopalian friend who complained that it's all just politics in our different churches. But there's something different about Christ's Church, the Catholic Church. I said, even if you don't believe that the Catholic Church is a divine institution, that you don't believe God the Holy Ghost prevents the Pope and the Councils from proclaiming falsehood and evil to be dogma, even if you don't believe in any of that, there is one fact about the Catholic Church -- *we* believe that. We believe that once something is proclaimed dogma, it can never be taught against.
I can't go out tomorrow and start saying that the Blessed Mother was a sinner because then I wouldn't be Catholic. Sr. Joan can't go out and say that women can be priests because that's not a teaching of the Catholic Church, she is not being Catholic. That is what it means to be automatically excommunicated, that you are proclaiming yourself not a Catholic. My Episcopalian friend would take that as a point of pride, she doesn't like the Catholic Church. But Sr. Joan wants to not be Catholic but still call herself Catholic.
The Church cannot change its mind. It *cannot* decide that something is true one day and false the other. Once the Catholic Church has already taught that only men can become priests, which has been taught for 6,000+ years, it cannot change its mind and decide that women can become priests. It's like the king in Esther, once he had given the order that the Jews must die, he could not take it back or it would mean that he could be wrong and his people would not want a faulty king, they believed their king was infallible. The most anti-Catholic person would say that the Church is rigid and dogmatic, that the Church never wants to admit it has been wrong and that is true in some situations. The Catholic Church cannot ordain women, it doesn't believe it has the power or authority to do so, that God established the male priesthood.
---
Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
-- Pope John Paul II, "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" (1994)
---
The question is not open to debate, it either is or it isn't. This is the Catholic faith, take it or leave it, it cannot change. Nobody is forcing you to be a Catholic and JPII said that if you believe the Church can change and start ordaining women, that it has the authority and ability to do so, you are not Catholic.
My mother left the Catholic Church and married my Lutheran father and after several years of ambivalent Christianity, they joined the Free Methodists, an Evangelical denomination which split off from the Methodists in the 1860s. From the beginning, they had female pastors and it is interesting to read the founder of the Free Methodist denomination's reasoning:
"If Christian Ministers were called upon to slaughter cattle and sheep as sacrifices for sin, then it would be improper for women to be ministers. This is the reason why, in the Old Testament, no woman is called a priest. Some of them were prophets to instruct and reform the people, but no woman was a priest to offer sacrifices for sins."
-- BT Roberts (Protestant Free Methodist leader), "Ordaining Women" (1891)
Roberts' argument is based on the idea that there are no priests, that there are only ministers who are teachers and prophets but not priests. The role of the priest is primarily to offer a sacrifice, for Catholics it is the Sacrifice of Christ on the altar. If you believe that priests are priests, that they are ministers of Christ the High Priest, offering Him on the altar to God the Father for the forgiveness of sins, then you cannot believe in female priests.
God never calls people to do the impossible. God never calls a woman to become a priest. God may legitimately call women to be prophets, there have been female prophets, even female judges, but female priests there have never been. Those women who claim they hear a voice telling them that they should become a priest, they are either lying or it is not the voice of God but the enemy. Go preach, go teach, go become a religious sister, or a nun or a consecrated virgin, go become a saint, go live out your lives in the model of our beloved Mother Mary in all humility and worship of God, but don't waste your time trying to change that which cannot be changed. God has spoken once, twice I have heard it. Have you heard it yet? Either you are on-board or you are not, either you are Catholic or you are not.
-- Tamara
COMPARING SALT Saying women
COMPARING SALT
Saying women can't be priests is an opinion.
Saying men can't bear children is a fact.
Your slip is showing...
Your slip is showing...
"Women are no less human because they can't be priests no more than men are no less men because they can't bear children."
Equating "men" with "human"? Your comment would have more weight if you had maintained a strict parallel between the two halves of your comparison.
Why is childbearing supposed
Why is childbearing supposed to be some kind of female equivalent of the prieshood (alhtough I will admit, the former is MUCH more important)? Men can father children (and many priests despite their vows of celibacy do so), women can get pregnant and give birth to them. Both have a role in reproduction, not just women. Both have priestly vocations, both ordained and non-ordained.
As a thinking Catholic I have
As a thinking Catholic I have not 'sworn alligance' to the Bishops! Nor to the Church actually. I love the Church, with all of its warts,and thus it has my allegiance. But to which Bishop should I swear allegiance? To the conservatives who had a fit over President Obama speaking at Notre Dame? The Pope did not find Obama offensive. I find this 'lock-step' mentality of Chrisianity most difficult to understand. It seems to stifle the fire of the Holy Spirit.
Well said, many thanks
Well said, many thanks
When "we as Catholics swear
When "we as Catholics swear allegience to the teachings of the Church and its Bishops," which bishops do we swear allegience to: the ones who protect pedophiles or the ones who defend the victims of pedophiles; the ones who allow for the primacy of conscience or the ones who walk in lockstep with the Vatican even when the Vatican approves the execution of saints (St. Joan D'Arc)or condemns true science; the ones who find Capitalism anti-Catholic and desire a state religion, as long as its the Roman Catholic religion,(Leo X111)or those who find Capitalism and religious pluralism ok? Please tell me how you think I should choose to support every bishop, when some, at least, have opposed good science, been pro-slavery, protected pedophile criminals and approved the execution of people who later were declared saints by other bishops.
Dear Hamilton, the analogy
Dear Hamilton, the analogy was not "comparing salt to the Magisterium", though as a spiritual metaphor "salt" would not be an insult.
.
Sister's analogy was that of 'peaceful resistance to injustice' — resistance that cannot be stopped, even when those who perpetuate injustice respond with hostile actions. Whether the reader concurs that an injustice has occurred, is a separate matter.
.
Historically, the human leadership of the institutional church have erred and great injustice has occurred during various periods of time. To acknowledge human mistakes is not a betrayal of faith — rather, it is simply to recognize the mistake in order to correct it. The Church is not "perfect"... neither as institution, nor as the mystical body of God's people. Such perfection is not possible in this imperfect world populated with imperfect people. To assign the concept of infallibility where it doesn't apply, would leave God's people vulnerable to complicity in any objective injustice in its governance.
.
I am not aware of any Catholic "swearing allegiance to the Church...", though there was a period of time in the past where priests were required to make an oath of loyalty (the end result of a papal perceived threat of so-called "modernism"). Our "allegiance" as baptized Catholics is to God. To place our loyalty and worship elsewhere would be a form of idolatry. Teachings of faith and morals is not the same thing as hierarchical governance, and its associated laws and disciplines.
Oaths of fidelity are not
Oaths of fidelity are not history, they are required in this age in this Church, in this time. The NCR covers this frequently.
Over 70
The issue is not obedience,
The issue is not obedience, or not.
It is the equation of dialoge (or the seeking thereof) to disobedience that is at issue.
Hamilton and your kindred we
Hamilton and your kindred we swear allegiance in the ultimate sense not to the teachings of the Church and its bishops but to Jesus' teachings. By the way, the truth of Jesus' teachings (love, compassion, mercy, righteousness, freedom) is more convincing when it's fleshed out in the very lives of the Catholics than when it's embodied in some abstract conceptual statements. The Gospel is the norm of our adherence to the teachings of the Church and its Bishops (as well as church traditions). If Catholics fail to live up to the evangelical teachings then it's a shame to pass themselves off as Catholics.
Hamilton, give that tired
Hamilton, give that tired analogy a rest! Ordination is a sacrament, the use of which has been totally defined by humans, specifically, male humans. Even Jesus never ordained anyone. The ability to bear children is a physical trait, and one established by God in the Creation.
Analogy does not constitute proof, as we all know. An analogy can shed light on complext topics, though not in this case, as you seek to compare a God-given physical trait with a human-defined barrier.
The speed with which Catholic
The speed with which Catholic women seek truth and act on it would cause one to think there is no truth to be found. Let's face it ladies, we have played the doormat, claimed victimhood, comforted ourselves with sisterhood, and now it is time to claim the truth of the gospels, our responsibility for our own competence, and get on with it. Whatever the next step is. Non progredi es regredi, my Latin teacher said. The bombastic behavior of nuns who merely usurp the duties of the priests and enable them to continue in their own version of limbo do not help the cause of truth. Let's go in the front door knowing that is where we belong. It is past time for the church to be saved from the ignorance, the incompetence, the misinterpretations, and the mental illnesses of the male hierarchy as practiced by the powers of the clergy and the religious. To claim access to the power of the Holy Sprit and not act on it is a travesty.
"It is past time for the
"It is past time for the church to be saved from the ignorance, the incompetence, the misinterpretations, and the mental illnesses of the male hierarchy as practiced by the powers of the clergy and the religious. To claim access to the power of the Holy Spirit and not act on it is a travesty."
What the Church needs is saving from is error and thankfully Jesus built in the safeguard of the Holy Spirit to guide the Magisterium.
Every "spirit" that speaks to the soul is not necessarily the "Holy Spirit". Careful discernment is required because the Devil is a highly intelligent and subtle opponent of the "Holy Spirit" who does not hesitate to deceive. He is a master of disguise and a brilliant ventriloquist. With and "message, vision or inner voice intuition" the reverent sign of the cross and deep prayer is needed to ensure one is not being deceived.
I have observed over the last 20 years the debate over female ordination and have seen no evidence of it being the work of the Spirit. The fruits of this discussion have been pride, anger ,wilful disobedience and a lack of charity towards those who fail to share this vision or viewpoint.
A perfect example of this lack of charity is the comment I quoted at the beginning.It is female chauvinism to speak this way of the male members of the Church and it is highly immature.Neither gender has a monopoly on intelligence, sanctity or stupidity.Believe it or not we are all equal in God's eyes and every individual is the beloved of God with a special mission that each is meant to fulfill.
As a woman I have never seen any common sense in the calls for women to be ordained because Our Blessed Lady was not at the Last Supper and if at any stage Jesus changes His mind in regard to the priesthood He will let us know through the raising up of holy souls with that message.If Jesus does not want it and to date there have been very clear signs that He does not want it with John Paul ending all further debate on the issue then it will never happen because Jesus said He would protect His beloved Church from error.
Every soul has a place in God's house.We don't have to be priests to be holy and there is much work to be done.
"Let's go in the front door
"Let's go in the front door knowing that is where we belong."
More meaningless rhetoric!Back door,front door, side door for heaven's sake!
It is not a competition.
Remember when the disciples were vying to know who was deserving of the higher place? "He who is last will be first" Jesus washed the feet of the apostles at the Last Supper. Isn't the message clear that humble service is great in the eyes of God. If women have been doormats it has been their own individual decision. There have been many strong tough female leaders throughout Church history.I don't think many got the best of Teresa of Avila or Mother Teresa.Do not confuse the suppression of women's independence and freedom brought about by cultural baggage with the Church which has always been a source of liberation for women.Since Our lady said "Yes" to the angel Gabriel women regained the dignity and freedom they were robbed of by Eve.A womwn who grows in personal holiness cannot be vanquished or cowed.True women's liberation lies in holy obedience to Mother Church.
Sister Chittister, thank
Sister Chittister, thank you.
We need you.
Prayers and warm regards
Adrian Doesburg
Amen. Neil Chapman NZ
Amen. Neil Chapman NZ
I agree with Sister Joan.
I agree with Sister Joan. This appears to be a matter of abuse of power, something that has become all too familiar among our bench of bishops over this decade. Sister Louise complied with the first demand, showing her willingness toward cooperation and endeavoring to defuse the situation. The bishop’s second demand ‘to recant’, was clearly punitive in nature (perhaps intended to be humiliating), along with an overt attempt to coerce and control this woman’s very own thoughts and conscience (see: CCC n.1782) — something I elaborated upon in a comment to the initial article.
.
The response of this bishop was not that of a pastor and teacher who would encourage questions and discussion, and so promote understanding and learning — instead, it was one of establishing dominance and forced compliance as the ‘alpha-male’ in the situation. His concern seemed less about the spiritual welfare of Sr. Louise or her concerns of conscience, or even teaching issues, and more about his own posturing and muscle-flexing for the benefit of his episcopal brotherhood, or perhaps others who might dare to question. Sister’s advocacy for all of the marginalized of society (not confined to merely female ordination) has been going on for many years… so this sudden 'line in the sand' appears most peculiar, any supposed ‘complaints’ not withstanding.
.
Regardless of the various opinions expressed on these forums, the all male priesthood is not an infallibly defined dogmatic teaching (see: Dr Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma), nor can it be construed as such from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. It is also an over-simplification to point to Scripture as a definitive point of reference, since it was the male leadership of the early Church within an ongoing patriarchal culture, who determined which of the many ancient writings would become part of the Canon of Scripture. At present the all male priesthood is a matter of institutional Church law, which on occasion can be and has been, re-scripted or changed entirely by the Magisterium.
.
I personally, am far more concerned with the disrespectful and ham-handed manner of the bishop’s actions, than with the ordination debate per se. Attempting to silence those of differing opinion or who have reasonable questions about the status quo, is cult behavior. To go even further by attempts to control thought and reason, becomes ideological tyranny… a complete distortion of Christian instruction and holy obedience. That is not the way our Lord relates to us. A sad outcome of this brusque episcopal model has been the emergence of certain laity who now casually pronounce a verdict of "heresy" upon those of differing perspectives, even going so far as to demand excommunication for those they disdain.
.
This sort of harsh dominance is believed by some of those holding the power, to strengthen the institutional church fabric, but in fact, it weakens THE Church — His Mystical Body which is the people of God — destroying the love, joy and peace, which should be the hallmarks of Christianity.
" ham-handed manner "...
" ham-handed manner "... heheheh... love it. :)
I also agree with Sister Joan
I also agree with Sister Joan and with Aileen.
"This sort of harsh dominance is believed by some of those holding the power, to strengthen the institutional church fabric, but in fact, it weakens THE Church — His Mystical Body which is the people of God — destroying the love, joy and peace, which should be the hallmarks of Christianity."
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
The Indians had Gandhi to
The Indians had Gandhi to organize the walk to the ocean. Who is leading the women today?
The Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit.
Look to the fruits to discern
Look to the fruits to discern the Spirit.Has the debate re women's ordination the hallmarks of the Holy Spirit at work?
Any soul can mistake its own desires for the action of the Holy Spirit.
A key characteristic and desire in human beings is the desire for independence and power.It is difficult to develop the virtue of holy obedience.I think people confuse blind obedience with holy obedience and feel that not supporting female ordination means they are failing to support women's rights to be treated equally.There is no conflict between being obedient to the Church's teachings in regard to the priesthood and to seeking justice for women.The priesthood is not a job it is a calling from God and God chose 12 men Women have equal dignity with men in the Church because of Our Blessed Mother. Her yes at the Annunciation restored to all women the dignity and respect that Eve took away. No deeply Catholic man cam lack respect for women and in my own experience any man with a deep devotion to our Blessed Lady priest or lay never mistreats or denigrates women.
Sister Joan, your article is,
Sister Joan, your article is, I think, a benchmark laid carefully and succinctly. It is neither the beginning nor the end but as much a blunt instrument as it is pivotal and respectful. To see you stand with your sisters - Akers, Schnneiders, Mongovern and faithful "dissidents" everywhere is inspiring; to see the diminution and exclusion of women and the de facto persecution,"dis-memberment" in the wider context is genius, not of the intelligence kind but that of the Spirit.
Dear dennism,Why is it so
Dear dennism,Why is it so wonderful to stand with the likes of people who cannot support Roman Catholic Dogma?? Sr. Joan claims to be a Roman Catholic and then stands with women all over the globe who casitigate and persecute the Roman Catholic Church! If one throws out his/her belief of Roman Catholic Dogma in one area, doesn't it follow that other Dogma will also be thrown out?
Again... the all male
Again... the all male priesthood is NOT a dogma.
tom warren on Sep. 10, 2009.
tom warren on Sep. 10, 2009.
You stated "Why is it so wonderful to stand with the likes of people who cannot support Roman Catholic Dogma?"
This is not a dogma! A dogma is an article of faith that we profess in the Creeds. The Church's statement about women not being priests is a discipline from Canon law. Canon law is man-made law and can be changed. It is a man-made law that Roman Catholic priests must be celibate. This can be changed and so can the prohibition against women being ordained as priests.
This is not accurate. Married
This is not accurate.
Married men can be ordained as Roman Catholic priests with a proper indult; this is Canon Law.
Women cannot be ordained because the ordinary Magisterium (Pope John Paul II) reaffirmed this prohibition.
Canon law and ordinary magisterium are two different things.
Why are most of the negative
Why are most of the negative responses men? And who is CASTIGATING and PERSECUTING whom? Which dogmas did Jesus support?
Over 70
this card gets played on
this card gets played on pretty much every thread on a topic such as this.
for the record, i am a woman in complete agreement with Holy mother Church and the Magesterium. I understand Our Lord's will to have men serve in persona Christi and for women to imitate the example of the Blessed Virgin mary.
Furthermore, I would say that women all over the world are in implicit disagreement with this viewpoint, as manifested in, for example, the 17 new postulants entering into the gloriously orthodox Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the eucharist.
Praise be to Pope Benedict. praise be to the Catholic saintly women such as the little flower, St. teresa of Avila, St. catherine of Ciena, St. scholastica, St clare of Asisi, Maria Goretti, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, and so many more who teach us how to seek God's will first and our own second. Praise be to Jesus Christ who told His Apostles he would remain with them, even unto the end of the age.
That dear Tom is part, and
That dear Tom is part, and maybe the essence of the problem. The church hierarchy has painted itself into such a corner that it cannot escape except that it throw itself back on to the message of Christ and abandon institution, wealth, power, domination, misogyny,property,even infallibility and worst of all, male dominance.
It must be extremely frightening to be faced with the need to trust in Jesus and the Spirit without the props!
No, it doesn't necessarily
No, it doesn't necessarily follow that, if one throws out one item of Catholic "dogma" then any other items of dogma can be thrown out also. There is widespread misunderstanding of what, exactly, constitutes "Catholic dogma." Many people believe that anything they have ever heard the Church preach or teach is Catholic dogma.
Not so. Example: the Church itself recently dropped "limbo" from it's list of "Catholic dogmas". Ah but whoa, then it was said that, actually, the church had never officially taught the existence if limbo and that may be quite true in terms of having it defined ex cathedra by any Pope. But it most certainly WAS taught, almost universally by preachers from the pulpit, by teachers in the classroom, etc. for centuries but finally it has been jettisoned by the Church itself. Excellent. I'm delighted that somebodies in the Church are allowe to ask questions and challenge some ideas.
But this leads to my real point: i.e that many things that have been taught are not authentic "Catholic dogma" and
many of the questions that are being asked and the "teachings" that are being challenged are actually all in the interest of clarifying exactly WHAT is Cathlic dogma. And the bishops' answers seem to be always be, "You're not allowed to talk about this, let alone ask these questions! Furthermore, you don't even need to think about it because we will always be here to tell you what you are allowed to think. Gentlemen, this is no way to run a Church full of intelligent, educated adults. It is patronizing and demeaning and people are getting less and less willing to accept such treatment.
Post new comment