Rose Marie elsewhere has indicated that God is female, therefore it makes perfect sense that Her vicars should be, too.

I just don’t understand why these schismatic Catholics just don’t abandon ship and join the liberal heterodoxy of TEC. And no one in their right theological mind really believes that these priestesses recieved a valid “ordination”.

Brian made this statement: “no one in their right theological mind really believes that these priestesses recieved a valid “ordination”.” What exactly do you mean by this? Now to my comments. I was, and still am, a conservative Protestant (although in practice I have been called “liberal” at times), and I actually don’t have much problem with any of this. I’ve come to think that some of the statements of Paul’s writings are more contextually based than general rules for everyone. After all, people don’t run around saying, “I can do whatever I want. I’m a Christian” and yet that is a specific statement and attitude that Paul dealt with in the Corinthian church. Women in leadership must be taken contextually. In some Christian traditions, it can’t work now, and never will, and we mustn’t force them to accept it. In others, there may be a need for leaders. And if no men will step up, someone needs to. And if it’s a woman, so be it. If the men won’t fill their “role” then the issue isn’t with the women since the men aren’t in authority anyway. And in some traditions, it may just be exactly what God is calling for. After all, there was that lady in Judges who was both a religious and political leader. Can’t argue with Scripture too much can we?

Rose Marie, This is the first I’ve heard of the ordination of these women in 2006. As for church law, Martin Luther King and his supporters were breaking the civil law when they insisted upon being recognized as equals. If they had not refused to go to the back of the bus and had not insisted upon sitting at lunch counters, I wonder how long it would have been until their rights had been recognized. In the case of women being priests, the decline in the number of priests ought to be a signal to the males who are in control that soon churches are not going to have a priest.If I live another 15 or 20 years, there might be a priest at 3 or 4 churches left in Springfield, out of the 8 or so that are there now.Either the other churches will close or there will be fewer masses at each church so that the available priests can cover all the churches on a Sunday. I don’t see the logic of it…

Rose Marie, Another side to this circumstance of too few priests is that it will possibly open an opportunity to close sanctuary space at some churches and require Catholics to travel a little further to attend masses at newer, more energy efficient buildings. If that happens (hopefully with women priests included), opportunity for reducing the expenses associated with so many buildings that are used only one day a week will occur. Then, perhaps that money will be used for those who are “thirsty”, “hungry”, and “naked”. We can hope!!!

I’m not a Catholic, but it’s always amazed me how so many people claim to be Catholic yet openly rebel against the church’s teachings. Do you just get to pick and choose which teachings you adhere to? Isn’t it all or nothing? It seems to me that you either submit to the church and its leaders or you do not. But if you aren’t going to submit, calling yourself Catholic just seems kind of dishonest.Both Peter and the author of Hebrews teach obedience to those in authority…does it apply here?

Somewhere in the Bible it says that if something is from God it will thrive, if not it is doomed. Well, all the things that Rose Marie and other secularized Catholics want are available in the Episcopal Church-the Protestant Church most like the Catholic Church. And ever since it began ordaining women it has become the incredible shrinking church–proving once again that polls don’t adequately really measure deep spiritual issues. If they did, the Episcopal church wouldn’t be losing millions of members walking out the door in only a few years. Yet polls still show all Americans are overwhelmingly for womenpriests. In otherwords people answer on polls what they the media has prepped them to say–while fools in foolish churches pay more attention to those polls than to Tradition or the Bible.

I’m always amused to see Protestants within the Catholic Church. Rose Marie, if you want, in the freedom of your conscience, to reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, that’s fine. As a reformed Protestant, I do reject that authority (as enunciated by the church). But you should have the decency to recognize that, in rejecting that authority (and revelling in doing so), you are distinctly not a Catholic in good standing and should recuse yourself from taking part in the Eucharist. Rejecting the ecclesiastical authority of the Roman Catholic Church makes you a Protestant, whether you like it or not. Mark Perkins

Jesse, and John Bresnahan, and Mark, With all due respect, I don’t think it’s a simple matter. Whatever our sect of Christianity, we’re all supposed to follow our conscience, and if we think leaders are wrong, we are supposed to speak up. In my view… The most well known example I can think of was Martin Luther. He was a Catholic priest who pointed out that for the Vatican to be selling indulgences and other practices in place at that time were wrong. My wild guess is that he was not the only one to see the error in that practice. Others on this blog have pointed out that some leaders of Islam treat women unjustly. In my view, the Catholic church is treating women unjustly, and to its own detriment. The issue of expenditures that could be provided to those who are “thirsty”, “hungry”, and “naked” for church building “sanctuary spaces” that are used once a week goes beyond the Catholic church and beyond Christianity. It accounts for a substantial percentage of the contributions we all make to our churches, synagoges, mosques, temples, and so on. I don’t think Jesus would approve. I’m less familiar with Abraham and Moses and Mohammed and Budda and others, but from what little I understand of their guidance for living a good life, I think they would disapprove. In my view…

Martin Luther was excommunicated and later declared anathema. He was also a Protestant. There’s a difference between speaking out and flat out rebelling against ecclesiastical authority. Unfortunately (in that I disagree with the position), the Catholic Church holds their authority as the Church above individual conscience. That is very clear from their Sacred Tradition. So it’s fine if you want to take your personal conscience above the authority claims of the Church. But in so doing you cease — as Martin Luther did — to be a Catholic. I don’t think that’s a problem — like I said, I’m a Protestant. But Rose Marie and these “priests” should not continue their pretense of being Roman Catholics when they clearly are not. The very foundation of the Roman Catholic Church is her authority claim as the body of Christ and the conduit of God’s grace to the world. Everything else is subordinate to that claim. Once you reject that claim, you cease to become a Roman Catholic. Period. Claiming Catholicism while rejecting Catholic authority claims is like claiming to be a Hindu but not believing in reincarnation. (again: I did not say whether Rose Marie was right or wrong in her beliefs; all I put forth is that she is clearly NOT a Roman Catholic and should stop falsely claiming to be one) The issue of the wise use of money is a separate one that has no direct connection at all to the issue of defying ecclesiastical authority. Buddha’s main teaching was to do all you can to reduce suffering, so I agree there. Abraham didn’t “teach”; he was a patriarch and was taught. Moses *sort of* taught in that he passed on the law handed down by God (so from a “secular” perspective, he certainly taught). There are numerous provisions in Mosaic law for helping the impoverished, so you are right to an extent there.

Those who assist persons who are “thirsty”, “hungry”, “naked” will be saved and those who do not provide that assistance will not be saved. Those who do those charities to persons in those circumstances do them for God and to God. The sum and substance of what God expects of us is that we love God and love our neighbor. In my view, that is what God expects us to do. In my view…

I’m amused by all the men who freak out whenever the issue of women priests is raised. Inevitably, they always drag in the poor Episcopalians,as if they wanted to be involved. “See, they ordained women priests and see what happened. They are in such decline and so forth…” Catholicism is in such stark decline that the issue of who qualifies for the Catholic priesthood will become moot in the next 50 years.Catholicism no longer holds sway in its traditional European strongholds; even Benedict has conceded that. South America, another traditional stronghold, is going evangelical,with Catholics poised to become a minority group in Brazil in less than 20 years. And if I am correct, the evangelicals believe in “the priesthood of all believers”? Believers are male and females, and so they will all be “in the priesthood.”

“I’m amused by all the men who freak out whenever the issue of women priests is raised.” In the “short-circuiting discourse dictionary” freak out = express an opinion that I do not accept.Just thought I’d post a handy translation for those not in the know.

What does God exoect of us? Christians are aware of the directive to love God and to love our neighbor. My impression is that other religions also support that objective to their belivers.

The Catholic Church is stronger than modernism and postmodernism; she will, I believe, transcend and outlast both. Further, I think the Catholic Church will start to slope upwards again in a decade — that is, the decline will be reversed and an incline will begin. Why? I believe Catholicism is dying because we’re now in second, third, and fourth generations of “cultural Catholics” — Catholic by birth, secular by lifestyle. When you take the cult (religion) out of culture, the culture dies. Cultural Catholics are a dying breed, and they will continue to do so. I do, however, see a more encouraging increase of Catholics by choice and commitment. They are in MUCH smaller numbers than the cultural Catholics, currently, but I believe that as the cultural Catholics weed themselves out from the Church, the genuinely committed ones will come to the fore and will eventually save the ship, if you will.

My post go lost in the aether somehow, so I’ll repeat myself: The comparison to the Episcopal Church (TEC) is more apt than most people recognize, because women’s ordination in TEC began in much the same manner: irregular ordinations done without proper approval. Except TEC, to it’s shame, backed up and allowed those involved to continue to serve. The message isn’t necessarily that women should never be ordained, but if they are, it should be done in proper order, after the church, as a whole, has agreed. Otherwise what happens is the church gets hijacked by whatever social cause its members might want to advance, instead of keeping its focus on advancing the interest of the Gospel. The chaotic precedent set by women’s ordination was followed when some priests created ad hoc rites for blessing gay unions. If I might anticipate an argument: no, this principle does not apply to the ordination of black ministers because, unlike women’s ordination, there is no scriptural basis for preventing otherwise qualified candidates from being ordained on the basis of their race. One can make a case for women’s ordination. I’m undecided myself. But opponents do have some scriptural ground to stand on, and that being the case women should not be ordained outside of proper channels. TEC failed to discipline irregular ordinations. And the results are there for all to see. Wolverine

Wolverine, In a more perfect world, women would not have to repeatedly try to push a stone up a hill (that males never encounter). And parishoners would not have to be inconvenienced by the obstinancy of a male dominated group of decision makers. If the trend persists, it is possible that poorly utilized, antiquated buildings will be abandoned and the cost savings might be transferred to support poor persons. It is possible… whether it is likely is another story… I can hope… and my hope is that women will be ordained and that a greater percentage of the contributions we all make to our churches will instead go to support of poor persons… here and abroad… Best wishes…

What does God expect from us? More than loving God and loving our neighbor in the modern feel-good sense. Jesus said that to love God is the greatest command. To love others is second and subordinate to the first command. It seems that those who push the social gospel ignore the true meaning of loving God, and instead teach that loving your neighbor is loving God. But loving God means committing wholly to him. Jesus said that if our love for our own families doesn’t seem like hate in comparison to our love for him, we have no place in the kingdom. Loving your neighbor is more than just allowing or helping them do whatever they want. If you truly love someone you will want them to live a Scriptural, Spirit-filled life. You will clothe the naked and feed the hungry, but you won’t leave it at that…you’ll point them to the cross. When you see a brother or sister in error, you’ll correct them. And when you sense that they’re beginning to be “conformed to the pattern of this world”, you’ll confront them. That’s what it is to love your neighbor. The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25 seems to be the basis of your statements here. You erroneously claim that it is “the sum and substance of what God expects of us”. To say that ignores most of the New Testament. I can do that too. Based on the Parable of the Talents, directly preceding, all I have to do to get into heaven is make money. What do you think of that? Or, according to the Parable of the Ten Virgins (again, directly preceding the last), I just have to be prepared and vigilant. I can even say, “Hey, if I give you some of mine I won’t make it!” Hording goods and being stingy can get me into heaven.It’s clear that taking one parable out of it’s context is bad theology. Yes, Jesus makes many statements about the poor (Wallis says 2000 verses, for now I’ll take him at his word). But there’s an entire Gospel written with the soul purpose of getting us to believe…something the social gospel ignores. There are also a great many verses about holiness and righteousness. They’re in the Gospels (“For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees…”), and in Paul’s epistles (“Be holy as your heavenly father is holy…”), and throughout the OT.Our service, our benevolence, our love for our neighbor, means nothing if it is not based in our acceptance and reflection of God’s holiness. In order to reflect that holiness, we have to acknowledge the roles that God clearly set out for men and women. I’m sure you will disagree with my view of gender roles, so I won’t argue it with you. Suffice it to say that an objective view of Scripture and anthropology clearly shows that men were meant to lead. It is not simply a patriarchal conspiracy. Finally, as a church employee it ticks me off when people act like the church is only used one day a week. Yes the sanctuary is typically used one day a week, except during Lent at my church. But on the other six days the lights and the heat are off, so there’s no maintenance cost associated with it. The rest of the church is bustling 7 days and nights a week…all year. On top of that, building costs (utilities, repairs, maintenance, mortgage, etc.) are less than 5% of our contribution. I can’t say that is the same for every church, but it’s true here. If you’re going to say something is a “substantial percentage”, get some real numbers, because 5% is in no way substantial. And are you seriously comparing the way many Muslims mistreat women to the exclusion of women from the priesthood and diaconate? Are there rooms in Catholic churches where the women get knocked around for not wearing their rosaries? I bet not. You sound like Charlize Theoron saying that there is as much a problem with freedom of speech in the US as in Cuba. Are you for real?

Why would you push a stone up a hill?

Why must “Liberals” and “Progressives” rule and dominate everyone and everything? Stay in your own frickin’ world. Do what you wilt . . . Somewhere else. Liberals seem completely unable to tolerate anyone that dissents from being like them. It’s alarming really. Those that claim Progressive status, that “claim” to be so enlightened, so, “open-minded” are anything but. They appear more like Romans from Nero’s age.

Rose Marie Berger can go on wishing all she wants and keep on aligning herself with schismatic, break-away groups who “ordain” women (her misuse of this word shows a lack in understanding of Catholic ecclesiology). The simple fact is the John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, “On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone,” flat out rejects the possibility. The Church doesn’t have the authority to ordain women. However, just as “progressive Catholics” (I like the term “secular Catholics” used above better) generally don’t agree with the Church’s taching on abortion or homosexuality, it only follows gthat they don’t care about its teaching on the priesthood.

You go, girl.

Stop conflating the issues of women’s ordination with church-building utility costs. It’s an absurd conflation of two distinct (though perhaps abstractly connected) issues.

Just think of all the problems that could have been prevented if the early Christians had just considered Paul a nutcase and used his letters to line the catbox or the Corinthian equivalent thereof. The Gentiles would never have joined up, the Pagans would have stayed in charge and we’d all be so much happier.

Someone said that 5% of contributions is the extent to which “sanctuary space” utilizes the budget for their church. When I say that the cost of “sanctuary space” consumes a significant portion of the contributions we all give to our respective churches, I’m thinking of the debt costs (initial construction and any subsequent expansions), major repairs, ordinary maintenance (including salaries), utilities, insurance and the like. Those costs aren’t reported annually, so I’m not sure what percentage they are, of the overall budget. But, from what I have asked about and observed, I conclude that it is significant, and that closing some of the older churches in Springfield would free up a significant percentage of what we all contribute, there. Then we could instead give that amount to poverty type programs. But, we can’t, because our parishes wouldn’t be meeting budgets if we would do that. As it is, bequeathments are necessary for parishes to meet budgets, considering the subsidies to dioceses and parochial schools, and that is a recent development. The history of parochial schools and mandatory subsidies to continue the operation of the schools and mandatory subsidies to the diocese also enter in, because those impact what remains of the contributions for use on the church buildings. In the mid-forties through the fifties there were 8 churches in town that had schools associated with them, plus two other parishes that did not have schools (one had closed its school in the 30′s). Each parish had multiple priests assigned to them. By 2004 or so, there were 2 new churches in the more affluent parts of town, each with its new school. The original two churches without schools had closed, plus one other church and its school (a new school having been built in that parish in the 60′s) had closed, plus school closings in two other parishes and “mission status” (a priest from a neighboring parish said the masses there) for the churches associated with the two closed schools. Most parishes were down to one priest, and the number of new priests was not keeping up with the number of those who were dying. About 2004, I contacted the nun at the diocese who was charged with poverty type programs to ask about the future plans for some of the churches that were struggling for viability, thinking she might already be supporting the idea of closing down some of the older churches to free up funds to go for poverty type programs. She referred me to the budget person. The priest assigned to planning for the diocese suggested to me that the costs of continuing the schools had the greatest impact on the budgets of the parishes in the diocese. He also gently referred me to think about the length of time that it takes for thinking patterns to change, in response to my questioning the wisdom of keeping the older church buildings open. And he is right. People have strong emotional attachments to the church buildings they grew up alongside and were married in and buried their parents from, and all that. He is also right about the subsidies for the schools. Class sizes are down to 15 or so per grade, compared to the 40 or so back in the 40′s and 50′s, and there no longer are the teaching nuns, at no salary. The result is that the parishes subsidize the schools… tuition is way below the actual per student cost necessary to support the costs of maintaining the schools. The parishes pick up the differences. And, the diocese mandates an annual amount from the parishioners of each parish to support the operating costs of the diocese. Part of that goes to building costs for the boys high school (built in the 60′s) that was closed in the 90′s and renovated to provide office space for the diocese. My wild guess is that these circumstances are replicated in many Catholic churches in the cities in which we live… in cities of 50,000 population or so, many parishes had schools and nuns supplied the teachers and the school buildings were comparatively new or recently remodeled… and there were many students per class… now down substantially… and costs are higher… A number of parents continue to want their children and grandchildren to have the same educational experience they had, and that leads to parish subsidies for the schools. And, church buildings that are no longer necessary (or economical to operate) are kept open, because the parishioners don’t want to let go. The consequence is that a substantial part of the contributions we make to our churches as “charity” goes to support the buildings that are used one day a week. Much less goes to real charity than would occur were we not “obligated” by our own consciences to carry our fair share of the load, when the pastor tells us how much money is coming in and how much more is needed to keep the parish going. It’s not a “fault” of anyone… it’s how things have evolved, over time… but someone ought to be speaking up about it… and the number of priests is dwindling to the point that, I think, the 8 “viable” parishes in Springfield will be down to 4 in about 15 years… wild guess, yes… but the trend and the data support that wild guess… And the fact is that the bottom is going to fall out… parishes are relying upon bequeathments to meet operating expenses… and if persons start leaving more of their estates to real charities, that will dry up. Parishes didn’t have to begin relying upon bequeathments for operating expenses, until recently.

Mark is right that talk about expenses of buildings isn’t on topic, and I am the person who got us off topic, when I thought about the relationship between declining numbers of priests and the need to reduce the number of church buildings to deal with that problem and the value that women priests could bring to solving the problem of too few priests. From the thought process I’ve been through over the last several years, it is related…in my mind… as laid out in the last very lengthy message… Women priests seems like a very logical solution to the priest shortage that is occurring… to help get this back on topic…

What about allowing priests to marry? My sense is that this would happen sooner than the church allowing women in the priesthood. And would do far more to help with the priest shortage.

Issues like these are why I ultimately had to stop going to church at all. I was born and raised in a family that is almost universally Catholic. As a young girl, my faith was very strong, but as I got older, the questions and doubts in the back of my mind became too great. By the time I was 18, I had, for all intents and purposes, left the Catholic church. Back then, I came to the decision that the Church was never going to change, no matter what I wanted. Also, because the Mass is central to the faith, and is a universal expression of belief in Catholicism, going to Mass was no longer an option for me, because it would be insulting to the people who actually DO believe in it. I’d just be taking up a pew space that would be better for someone who is faithful.It’s been fifteen years since I left, and while I still go to family weddings and funerals, I don’t take Eucharist when I’m there, and stay silent when it comes to reciting the creeds in Mass.While I have a great deal of affection for the ceremony of the Church and for the Mass, as a woman I always felt isolated and like I wasn’t really a part of what was going on. It hurt me a great deal to walk away, but in the end, it felt like the most honest thing I could do. I think, in the long run, it’s been the best thing for me even if I haven’t got another spiritual home to call my own.

Jesse, I think both would help.Many priests left the priesthood in the 70′s and subsequently married and my wild guess is that many would probably love to get back to serving the people of their parish by saying mass and visiting sick persons and conducting funerals and the like…. They are aging, and the help they would provide would be short lived. Longer term, the males in charge of the Catholic church just have to change their thinking, and Rose Marie is just one of many voices, including some priests, who acknowledge that the leaders are just not making good sense. In my view…

LGJ, I know a woman who, after decades of being very active in her parish, just threw in the towel after some recent pronouncement by the Vatican. She now attends a church which she finds to be very supportive of women, many of whom also just finally gave up… I wish she had remained… “it’s her church too”. I’m thinking of what Christie Todd Whitman said of her political party… “it’s my party, too”. Peace!

All men are priests. All women are priests. We are all mediators of God because we all bear God’s likeness. Male and female did the Creator make them, in the likeness of the maker were they made.If the church is to be a working vessel of eternal light it must open to more of the feminine in its vision and expression of truth.

Mike– It would have been nice if I’d been able to stay. My childhood was filled with things like CCD classes, lock-ins and retreats, and all sorts of things related to church.However, between my doubts, and the feeling of isolation from full participation in the Mass, I just got more and more uncomfortable every time I walked in the door. I felt like I was lying to everyone– my family, the people in the church, the priest, etc. But most of all, I was lying to myself, and to the relationship that I wanted with what I called God. I just couldn’t do it anymore. It’s still something that makes me sad, but at the same time, I feel liberated, since by not going, and by not participating anymore, I’m not lying. Maybe someday I’ll find a church or a faith that speaks to me, but for now, I’m still a spiritual orphan. It’s okay. I’ve gotten used to it by now.

from what I have asked about and observed, I conclude that it is significant, and that closing some of the older churches in Springfield would free up a significant percentage of what we all contribute, there.Closing church buildings will not reduce building costs; the building is a sunk cost, so the only relevant factors at this point (after the building) are regular maintenance and major repairs. A number of parents continue to want their children and grandchildren to have the same educational experience they had, and that leads to parish subsidies for the schools.And good for them. The education system public and private is in a seriously awful state. A genuine liberal arts education is nearly impossible to find at either the high school or collegiate level, and society is suffering the consequences. the need to reduce the number of church buildings to deal with that problem and the value that women priests could bring to solving the problem of too few priests.Wouldn t a larger number of priests then reduce the necessity to shut down the buildings? It is an unrelated topic, but it is still interesting Mike LJG: I appreciate your honesty. I do, however, disagree with your belief that the Church will never change (considering its incredible changes in the last five hundred years or even in the last century), though it s probably accurate to assume that they won t change just for you. I think it is perfectly acceptable to attend Mass respectfully while in disagreement. What I don t appreciate is Rose Marie s contention that she still is a genuine Catholic while rejecting the Roman Catholic authority claims. Again, it s impossible to reject Catholic authority claims and still be a Catholic.

Joseph T, Yes, and some outcome from the Vatican II reforms was the concept that the people of the Catholic church have a legitimate claim to speak for the church (not the right words, but the right concept).

LJG, May you continue to have peace in your heart! At some point, may you also happen upon some group which allows you to speak to what you have experienced… as did our friend from the Catholic church in Springfield… you have company, somewhere, where you live… wherever that is… It’s your church, too… Peace! Mike

LJG: I appreciate your honesty. I do, however, disagree with your belief that the Church will never change (considering its incredible changes in the last five hundred years or even in the last century), though it s probably accurate to assume that they won t change just for you. Oh, the church HAS changed over the centuries. That much is very true. And many of those changes have been for the better. But the changes I would have wanted to see, like female ordination, will never happen in my lifetime.As a girl, I deeply wanted to be a priest. I knew the Mass backwards and forwards, and would even mimic the Eucharistic rituals at home using crackers, or whatever snacks I had on hand. Finding out that I couldn’t do it, and only because I was a girl was a huge blow. After that, I think I really started to look at what I was being taught with a much more critical eye.The rest is history. I think it is perfectly acceptable to attend Mass respectfully while in disagreement. What I don t appreciate is Rose Marie s contention that she still is a genuine Catholic while rejecting the Roman Catholic authority claims. Again, it s impossible to reject Catholic authority claims and still be a Catholic. That’s just it, though. I rejected the idea that because I was female, I was somehow unworthy of being a priest and of participating fully in the Mass, and from there, I started to seriously question the overall authority of the church. After that, trying to reconcile my faith with my disagreements with the Vatican and my overall doubts just became impossible. That’s why it all felt like a lie every time I would set foot inside a church, and why I felt the need to walk away. I couldn’t go to Mass with a clear conscience, knowing that I felt the doubts and reservations that I did, and knowing that I was disagreeing with the Church itself. It just all felt wrong. Does that make sense? Like I said before– maybe someday I’ll find something that speaks to me, and that works. I haven’t found it yet, but I’m an optimist at heart. I’m sure something will come along.

Jesse, I think you are correct that allowing married males to become priests would also help… beyond just the former male priests who left in the 70′s and subsequently married and who have just a few decades left in their lives… If the celebacy requirement were eliminated, males who just don’t want to go through life as a single person would be more likely to respond and become priests… that would not end in just a few decades. It would add to the costs of the operation of a parish, presumably, because the married male priests would have to receive an income adequate to support a family. I digress here, briefly… From my observation, some parishes are already going to fail, financially, because income is just not keeping up with expenses. Once bequeathments decline (and I’m assuming that will occur), bishops are going to be forced to close those parishes. The outcome will be greater utilization of buildings that are newer and in more prosperous areas of a community… in my view. There is a bad to that… parishioners in poorer parts of a community will lose their touchstone… The costs of major repairs to those older buildings will disappear… the oldest church in Springfield was torn down (along with the “new” school built in the 60′s) and a multi story parking lot for a hospital was placed in the space. But, I digress… I think the change that will have to occur is that women will have to be ordained, along with married persons, male and female. Will the Vatican do that… I doubt it. I often compare the Vatican to a pilot flying a plane who realizes the plane is going to crash but who keeps on flying in the same direction, hoping the earth will get out of the way… Nonetheless, it’s not the church of the Vatican… it’s supposed to be the church of the people… In my view…

Mike, I still don’t believe that these buildings are used only once a week, and salary is not a part of “regular maintenance” of the sanctuary (unless you have a handyman). People should stop saying that Churh church thinks women are “somehow unworthy of being a priest and of participating fully in the Mass”. It’s not true. No man or woman is worthy of any place in the body of Christ. It’s a gift. Along with the gift come the commands, which we obey out of gratitude. Included in those commands are roles for men and women. It’s fallacious to say that women are “limited” to life in the home, or are treated as “second-rate” members of the body. Men and women are given different roles. It’s society that tells us that working outside the home or administering the Eucharist is more important work. Remember that Paul had deaconesses that he worked with in his ministry. He was all for the full participation of women. But leadership is a role given to men, and Catholic men should be as ashamed about not stepping up into their roles. God sets out wonderful, challenging roles for both genders, each with it’s benefits and it’s pitfalls. Men are called to lead and protect. Women nurture and support. This isn’t a lesser role. I’m sure most of you will say I’m just trying to keep men in power, or something to that effect, so bring it on. I’ll rest on the testimony of Scripture. Bring me your “alternative readings” and “allegorical interpretations.” The Word can stand on it’s own merits.

And stop saying “In my view…” It’s either false humility – if it were honest humility you wouldn’t keep stating your uncertain view in the light of so much valid criticism – or you’re afraid of being held to your own comments. It’s cowardly at best, manipulative at worst. If you want to say something, have a little confidence and self-respect. Paul said, “Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment…” If you’re convicted about something, stand by it, be assertive. Just tryin’ to help you, out…

Here’s the skinny: Diocese and parishes which have fidelity to the orthodox and catholic proclamation of Catholic teaching are thriving. Thriving not only in terms of a healthy parish life but also thriving in the sense of having plenty of voations. To the contrary, parishes and diocese which are not quick to do the same, or in some cases are in open rebellion against the Church’s teaching, continue to slug along. I’d really, really, really, like to know why “liberal and progressive” Catholics who jettison the teachings of the Church do not become American Episopalians? Seriously, let’s have an answer. You see to have no theological disagreements whatsoever. Seriously again, you can have virtually everything there that you want: female ordination, green light approval on homosexual living, heck, you can even be a Unitarian or Universalist there if you want!So, why not? (Answers such as “my family has been Catholic for X years do not apply)

These women are not priests and bishops, they are actors in costume. There is no difference between these people’s made-up ceremony and ritual (which are complete innovations, btw) and those you see in Hollywood when filming a motion picture – except perhaps the Hollywood version is MORE authentic to Tradition. Wear the costumes, play the part, but one is simply an actor, not the real thing. This whole charade would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic, a group of grown people playing dress-up; and they really believe that the Burger King crown makes them royalty. What can one say to a mentally ill person who claims to be the King of Atlantis… what else.. Vive Le Roi! Perhaps now they will leave the rest of us along and play dress-up with each other. Lithium anyone?

Mark PI know this isn’t the main point of the argument but there are many shades of opinion in the philosophy and practise of Hinduism just as there is in Roman Catholic Christianity. Belief in reincarnation or the transmigration of souls is very common in Hinduism but there are Hindus who do not believe in it at all yet still regard themselves as part of the Hindu culture and tradition. None of us accept all the particular teachings of whatever denomination we find ourselves in either by birth or conversion. As a Protestant I belive that RCs can and should challenge the practices of their Church from the inside without having to seperate from their spiritual home. One of the terrible consequences of Luther and the Reformation has been the hundreds and hundreds of different denominations that have sprung up in the last 4-500 years which is so confusing to non-christians particully in places like India nd SE Asia.

Elmo, If you were a member of a group that denied you the opportunity to participate in some aspect of the group’s activities because you lacked some arbitrary characteristic possessed 50% of the group members, you might resent it… rightly so, I think… In my view…

God must be a sexist since men can’t have babies and women can never be fathers.Or perhaps both roles are equal in dignity, just vary in their externals.

Mike, I like the equal in dignity option…

Someone said that parts of the US have an adequate supply of (male) priests. I’m wondering where those places are and if they have any online information sources. Also whether they send delegates to the meetings of the US Catholic bishops to let the rest of the country in on what their secret of success is. Apparently there is some connection between complete compliance with the leadership of the Vatican and the locations in the US where this phenomenon occurs. Sounds like a great topic for a thesis in some field of religious studies…

“hundreds and hundreds of different denominations that have sprung up in the last 4-500 years which is so confusing to non-christians particully in places like India nd SE Asia.” How is that confusing if there are Hindus who are considered such that reject reincarnation, an underlying necessity to the basic tenants of Hinduism? “there are Hindus who do not believe in it at all yet still regard themselves as part of the Hindu culture and tradition.” That’s exactly what I’m decrying, particularly with cultural Catholics who want to do their own thing and ignore the Church’s very reason for existence (that is, her claims to be the sole authority of Jesus Christ on earth)… but they are uncomfortable with separating themselves from the culture and tradition of their ancestors… so they call themselves Catholics even though they are not. Rose Marie can call herself a Catholic all she wants, but once you’ve rejected the Church’s authority claims, you’ve rejected the Church. “As a Protestant I belive that RCs can and should challenge the practices of their Church from the inside without having to seperate from their spiritual home.” That’s because you’re a Protestant, and you don’t understand Catholicism. Apostolic succession and the claim to singular ecclesiastical authority is what separates Catholicism from being just another Protestant denomination. If you take that away, you no longer have the Roman Catholic Church; rather, you have a traditional, liturgical Protestant denomination (SEE: the Anglican Church). It also depends on what you mean by “challenge.” Erasmus, by example, worked to reform the Catholic Church in chorus with *some* of what Luther sought to do. But Erasmus did so within the Church, still accepting the Church’s ecclesiastical authority. Luther rejected that authority and thereby ceased to be a Roman Catholic. So, if Rose Marie wants to call for female priesthood and work within the Church to reform, that’s fine. But her womenpriest friends have NOT done so; rather, they have completely rejected the Church’s mandates, directly trespassing on the ecclesiastical authority. They have flaunted their disobedience. This makes them PROTESTANTS — NOT Catholics. If Rose Marie and her friends worked towards reform rather than rebellion, they could still be Catholics. They have not and are not, and should probably be excommunicated for rejecting the Church. Again — that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I reject Roman Catholic authority claims. I do not believe in apostolic succession. I am a Protestant. So I’m not saying Protestantism is a bad thing, obviously. But stop the charade, and stop falsely claiming to be a Roman Catholic. It’s offensive.

Because someone is against something the Church teaches for the reason they do not understand the teaching or what lies behind it–that does not mean they are not Catholic. Many “devout” loyal Catholics cannot explain EVERY teaching or doctrine of the Church. All us Catholics, even us clergy, have more we can learn.Thus the rule of thumb is not how doctrinally astute or learned a Catholic is, but whether a Catholic is giving scandal by publicly attacking a Church teaching. Then you might say a person has really become “Protestant” and is being very insincere and phony in their claiming that their personal doctrines are “Catholic.” if it is clear they have no desire to learn or understand Catholic Truth but just attack, attack, attack.But 99% of Catholics who disagree with one Church teaching or another on polls are NOT public “attackers” so the Church considers it her duty to try to educate these Catholics more deeply in the teachings of the Faith.However, this is extremely difficult in our society which has become increasingly anti-Christian and anti-Catholic especially in many of its educational and media establishments. Mostly because the Catholic Church will not sell-out traditional Christian morality to please the NY TIMES and other promoters of moral decadence.

I feel like you are not reading what I’m writing at all. I am NOT saying that DISAGREEING or MISUNDERSTANDING a Roman Catholic teaching makes someone a Protestant. Am I clear on that? What I AM saying is that when you stand in DIRECT REBELLION of the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, you have ceased to recognize the Church’s authority claims, and THAT means you are no longer a Roman Catholic. Again(!!!): It’s not about DISAGREEING with a teaching; it’s about whether you directly go against the authority of the Church. Look, they can disagree with the male-only priesthood all they want. The issue is NOT disagreement; it’s when they reject the mandates of the Church authority, thereby rejecting her claims to authority… and once you’ve rejected the Roman Catholic claims to ecclesiastical authority, you CEASE to be a Catholic.

Mostly because the Catholic Church will not sell-out traditional Christian morality to please the NY TIMES and other promoters of moral decadence. Perhaps (although I’d phrase it differently, and feel a bit sad that I won’t be around in the 24th Century for what I expect will be the next round of papal apologies), But John, can you think of anything else – something that happened within the last decade or so, maybe – that could have really turned many folks away or against (at least temporarily) . . . well, if not the Church, at least the church-as-it-is-today? Anyway, it’s always fascinating – looking at some of the other comments – to hear from folks that are somehow still stuck in the ’50s, in a world where women maybe go to college or work as a secretary prior to marrying and raising kids, as opposed to living in the real world of the 21st century, where women might be a homemaker – or a businesswoman, might spend her day in the kitchen or a lab, might send a child to time-out or a criminal to jail – or of course, most of the time, do both things (not that society has gone out of its way to help). Now, women priests – well, I’m not religious, let alone Catholic, so I don’t have a Dominican in this fight, so to speak. But really. living in the 21st century, it’s kind of painfully obvious that however dressed up in sophisticated theology and erudite arguments, at the bottom it’s just a bunch of boys up in a treehouse posting up signs about how there are “No Girls Allowed”. Or, perhaps, male partners at a law firm somewhere that somehow never got the memo, who actually still imagine that women are there to pour the coffee and take dictation, but not – never! what a ridiculous idea! – be lawyers . . . Ah, well . . . I do have to say though, after reading the linked two-views piece in First Things – the more I read about John Paul II’s theology of the body, the more it I’m convinced that it serves as an argument not just for married priests, but of making marriage a requirement for Popes. Perhaps they’ll sound a little less like very bright (but perhaps a bit socially awkward) teenage boys whose elaborate theories about men, women, sex and relationships nevertheless lack the knowledge that only comes with actual experience?

Oh Dan, you’re so enlightened and progressive. Boy, I just feel like an 8-track around your iPod video modernity. One of these days, maybe we antiquated, backwards-thinking medievalists can all be as enlightened and hip and condescending as you are from your high perch of postmodern relativism and contemporary snobbishness. You’re just so gosh-darn advanced. Your sharp, keen mind — trained by the latest thinkers and fully compatible with the most forward-thinking elements of society — pierces through this fog of old-fashioned patriarchy. You see so clearly how anything fifty-years-old is just so silly and ancient and outdated. I’m just so happy and proud that you deigned to allow some of the sweat from your wise brow to drop into the midst of the conversation so that I can finally (finally!) see how ignorant I’ve been.

The issue is not so much about human rites but about iconic images and cultic symbolism. Of course male and female are equal. The whole issue or problem, if we may here is that God chose a certain set of motifs and symbols to communicate something to humankind. The blood sacrifice of Abel, the offering of the son by Abraham. The motif of the blood offering of the son by the father, and this is carried over into the Passover, with a male lamb. Unlike the role in Protestant services, the priest in Catholic/Orthodox Eucharist services stands as an imago christi. Why did God choose this? I do not know, but He did. Now to all of you who think this is about politics and control I say “well maybe some things can be changed in administrative lines, and perhaps some sort of governance reforms are possible in diocese and such” and perhaps even new secondary rites can be nurtured to facilitate some meaningful services that women can fulfill besides being playing the current role. To those who ask “why should women not be called to the pulpit?” I answer “maybe they can be called to the pulpit, but not to the altar”.

I think it’s just about destroying traditional gender roles — the idea that individuals could actually be naturally DIFFERENT in strengths and weaknesses is repulsive to the post-modern mind. The fact that there ARE in fact differences between men and women that do affect ability — differences that are naturally and genetically embedded — is repulsive because it puts limits on human action… and progressives, being homocentric (homo=human) humanitarians, can’t deal with imposed and inexorable limitations. Again, this idea of different roles is unacceptable to the postmodern mind, especially when you’ve made the mistake of deciding that leadership is a superior state to submission (which is ridiculous).

To echo Mark P: For every conservative that is freaked out by the idea of women as equals, there is a feminist who is freaked out by the notion that men and women are not precisely interchangeable; that there are differences between the two that matter. My main objection to women as priests right now is the “rights” language of most women’s ordination advocates — “it’s my church too” — as if the priesthood were a right and not a calling. Wolverine

There is an issue of authority here that is being bypassed by the author. It seems fairly evident that, because the Roman Catholic Church will not ordain women, the irregular rites taking place on these floating vessels are not genuine ordinations. If the women at issue are seeking a calling to ordained ministry, why do they not seek it in a body that does ordain women, such as the Episcopal Church, the PCUSA or the United Methodist Church? Why profess loyalty to an institution when one openly disagrees with its teachings?

Those who address the issue of women in church leadership by saying something along the lines of, let’s all get out of the 1950′s and recognize that women are capable of xyz are not even bothering to engage the debate. A women’s ability to be a lawyer has nothing to do with whether she should be a pastor or a priest. Period.

Speaking as though we have absolute truth just doesn’t convince those who disagree with us. I think this topic is going through what many other topics on this blog and other blogs eventually get to… a point where everyone is basically agreeing to disagree without just saying it and dropping what has become a repititious, boring exchange, for everyone involved. In my view…

“Boy, I just feel like an 8-track around your iPod video modernity. Oh, I only wish I had a video iPod. That would be pretty cool . . . Michael argues that: “ The issue is not so much about human rites [!]but about iconic images and cultic symbolism . . . the priest in Catholic/Orthodox Eucharist services stands as an imago christi. Why did God choose this? I do not know, but He did. Which is an excellent point (although I’d say it’s inherently about both; symbolism doesn’t come from thin air). Now, I don’t believe that God chose that (rather, that people did), but starting with this assumption, might one think that what worked in other times, when “male” contained certain implications and meanings, no longer makes sense now that many of these things (rightfully) no longer hold? Perhaps if new primary roles could be developed, that retained appropriate aspects of this symbolism without depriving women of leadership roles? But that’s not my business . .Mark P: you have some very interesting things to say (and defining the “homo” in “homocentric” is hilarious). But while you’re fairly accurate in that liberals often oppose (certain kinds of) imposed and inexorable limitations – historically, often to our great credit – I think you’re off the mark re: “the idea that individuals could actually be naturally DIFFERENT in strengths and weaknesses is repulsive to the post-modern mind. Nobody has a problem with the idea that individuals can naturally have different strengths and weaknesses (though we might question the meaning of “naturally”). The issue is with the idea that groups are naturally different, and the significance of any such differences. So: are there naturally and genetically embedded diffences between men and women as a group that do affect ability? Well, besides the amusingly obvious, a reasonable position seems to be a) yes, there are some differences, b) we rarely have the faintest clue what these differences mean, and c) the variation within each group generally dwarfs the difference between them (individual differences!). Even in terms of things like size and strength: yes, your average man is taller, heavier, and has more upper body stregth than your average women, but the difference isn’t that great, and there’s a fair amount of overlap – and these are among the clearest differences, besides the sex/baby-making/feeding bit. And besides, in the case of strength, seeing how social norms can exaggerate real differences (ie, discourage women from almost any kind of exercise, and they’ll be not nearly as strong as they might have been), one can also see that differences in size and strength are of greatly decreased significance in the modern world. And certainly history gives us a lot of reason to be cautious re: claims of obvious and natural differences between the sexes with great social significance in terms of opportunity and power. Remember, 10 generations ago the idea that women could (let alone should) be educated to the same degree as men was absurd. Today everyone realizes that what was absurd, and oppressively sexist, was the idea that they couldn’t. Champions of gender difference argue instead only that (for example) women might be ‘naturally’ somewhat underrepresented at the very highest ranks of say, physics or math.” especially when you’ve made the mistake of deciding that leadership is a superior state to submission. That’s a complicated and subtle matter, but I think it’s quickly clarified when the issue at hand involves one entire group being banned from leadership, and given only submission. Boss isn’t necessary a superior state to secretary (except in terms of social and material status, of course), but if you declare that only men can be bosses, it’s on you to justify this. For every conservative that is freaked out by the idea of women as equals, there is a feminist who is freaked out by the notion that men and women are not precisely interchangeable; that there are differences between the two that matter. I don’t think this quite right. I’d guess that most feminists aren’t freaked out by the idea that women and men aren’t precisely interchangable, etc. – it’s that they elevate shared humanity and specific individuality above this in many cases; again, how do these differences matter? They also know that many such claims have turned out to be nothing more than old husbands’ tales, usually after no little cost and struggle. “as if the priesthood were a right and not a calling” That’s probably inevitable, given such history, but perhaps, a right to have a calling? kevin s. “[people like Dan S.] are not even bothering to engage the debate.” Well, in my specific case, some of it is I can’t, in an honest way, bein’ all non-religious and all. But even on top of this, I’m refusing to recognize the validity of the debate, much as I would if someone started debating (though this is only formally, not morally equivalent) slavery based on stuff about sons of Ham and biblical references to slavery in the ancient world. “A women’s ability to be a lawyer has nothing to do with whether she should be a pastor or a priest. Period.” In fact, I would go so far as to say that a woman’s (or man’s) ability to be a lawyer may well suggest they won’t be a good pastor or priest. But on the group, rather than individual level, it would seem that the practice of barring women from high-status/leadership roles within both the a) legal profession and b) the Church come from the same root. We’ve wisely discarded this silly idea in terms of a), why not b)? The best argument is what Michael brings up, but that really just gets us back to the ideological justifications that underlay both things, and have been exposed as nonsensical in terms of lawyering. If the Church wants to structure itself, and belief, in terms of the duality of humankind, surely it can find ways that don’t insist on women’s inferiority? – because that’s what this is doing, here and now. To argue otherwise is like insisting that criticizing a system which only let women-as-a-class make the coffee, while men got to make boardroom decisions is just a silly mistake based on the idea that leadership is somehow superior to submission. Or that women can’t be priests because Jesus had facial hair, male genitalia, and the ability to father children – which is how the debate generally comes across in public. If women-as-a-class can be lawyers, you need to explain what prevents them from being priests (besides silliness like (from that FT article) “Men represent Christ in a way that women cannot because men s relationship to creation is one of detachment and distance. They cannot fully share in the intimacy that women have with their children. Therefore, they better serve as an image of transcendent love, a love that is wholly other but seeks only the welfare of the other.” Womb envy. {Sigh}. Of course, here in real life, many fathers are increasingly and happily taking on a far closer role in raising their children, rather than having relationships of “detatchment and distance” like – too often, and often regretted – their own fathers did. Really, Sarah H. Wilson’s response, if to a slightly different aspect of the question, is excellent: “This amounts to an elevation of the biological process that sounds more like the rain god Baal fertilizing passive mother earth than the Lord of Israel. Paganism sees masculinity in God and femininity in earth and its inhabitants; Judaism and Christianity do not.“Ted: I think perhaps one equivalent here is Susan B. Anthony’s act of illegal voting (being a woman, you see), in 1872. Should she have simply given up her citizenship – openly disagreeing with U.S. law in this case – and moved to some other country that allowed women to vote?

I’d say it’s inherently about both; symbolism doesn’t come from thin air -Agreed. We humans tend to understand things via symbol, myth, and storytelling. Sure, the truth behind the story is what really matters, but symbol and myth are the ways that we can grasp the understanding. This is why I believe God worked through the history of the Hebrew nation to initially reveal Himself the symbol and myth (myth properly understood, for the record, does *not* imply falsehood of any sort) built through their history offers an understanding.no longer makes sense now that many of these things (rightfully) no longer hold? -That is definitely important, and it is critical to understand Scripture in the culture in which it was written else Jeremiah s admonition to circumcise the foreskins of your heart would make no sense. So you have to ask, What was related to the particular culture? In 1 Corinthians 14, for example, I might argue that the order of silence is cultural for various reasons. 1 Timothy 2 is probably not cultural, though, given some of the frames of reference.and defining the “homo” in “homocentric” is hilarious -You never know your audience, I suppose. Safe than sorry, and all that.The issue is with the idea that groups are naturally different, and the significance of any such differences. -Ah, true.Even in terms of things like size and strength: yes, your average man is taller, heavier, and has more upper body stregth than your average women, but the difference isn’t that great, and there’s a fair amount of overlap – and these are among the clearest differences, besides the sex/baby-making/feeding bit. -In relation to this, I tend to take a general approach to things like leadership, and I also tend to see things in perhaps more of an ideal meets actual sense. I/e, there is an ideal, but the actual is such that the ideal won t work and you have to make concessions. For an example see the story of Deborah in Judges the ideal was that the male leaders of Israel would step to the table and lead the Hebrews into battle. They did not, so Deborah did, and she did so in the full sanction of God.Today everyone realizes that what was absurd, and oppressively sexist, was the idea that they couldn’t. -True. The New Testament, now seen as oppressive and restriction to women, was generally revolutionary in its treatment of equality between the genders.I think it’s quickly clarified when the issue at hand involves one entire group being banned from leadership, and given only submission. -I understand the difference between individuals and groups, but I don t think that clarifies things.right to have a calling? -Understand that a calling isn t some benefit package Let not many of you be teachers, says the book of James, knowing as such we will incur a stricter judgement. It s a burden as well as a blessing.that’s what this is doing, here and now. -Only if you assume that leadership is a superior position. If it s NOT, then you could as easily say, It treats men as lesser because it makes men HAVE to be leaders Leadership in Christianity is servanthood and sacrifice. You lead by denying yourself for those you lead. It is not, What can I do for me? it s never about yourself, Biblically speaking. Dan S, my main issue is your presumptive nature of speaking (in your previous post, not this last one) betraying some serious contempt of the old and the contemporary snobbishness of every arrogant generation assuming we know better than before failing to see that, as Kirk said, We are dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants.

Mike Hayes -If you check out info on the Diocese of Lincoln, NE (dioceseoflincoln.org), you’ll see that they have 148 Priests for 138 parishes… which is tight, to be sure. The good news? 38 Seminarians in various stages of formation. I have heard others speak of this diocese, and they say that it is the bishop’s strong orthodoxy that has inspired such an influx of young men. Peace,

Thank God for Rose Marie and her courage to put herself out there to be exposed to such assaults from some of you all. Women have been ordained since the 1800s in America and then it was taken away, and then given to them and so on until the 50s. I have several books on women clergy from the 1800s, 30s and 50s. What hard roads these women climbed daily breaking new ground and new ways of doing ministry for us today who stand on their shoulders as clergywomen. Thank God for them. Instead of being critical, judging, going off on detours, how about rolling up your sleeves and your minds and getting out there to do ministry. It is not like our world is in such great shape we can afford to miss the main thing. There are many Catholics ready for a change and ready for women priests. There are many catholic priests and professors who are ready. Women have kept silent for too long. It is not only men who can speak for God and lead a church. There are plenty of women leaders in the Bible who illustrate capability and gifts for leadership. Once again you blame women for the downsizing of denominations. who else – you have to blame someone so why not women. One day the catholic church will come around and evolve in their understanding of what God is doing in our world and who God is. Women are the best fit for ministry, ordination, pastoral care, teaching, preaching and leadership in the church. They have done it for years without the pay, the recognition, the training, the denominational backing and the God given right to explore their calling in life until now. It has been a fact for several years now that at least 45% of all seminary students are women and maybe even higher than that. Thank you Rose Marie for your honesty and your story and witness that brings to the forefront that it is not completely a safe place out there for women even in the safest place there is – the church. Rev. Sara Hardaway

Dear Ms. Berger: As a Catholic in bad standing, I am intrigued by your remarks. As a priest in bad standing, I am fascinated by your insights. Thanks for writing, and thanks for the vision. Peace!

Since I’m not Catholic I will not offer an opinion on whether or not people such as Rose Marie should remain in the Church and continue to call themselves Catholic. Solomonically yours.

I appreciate the jibe. I am not a Catholic, but I know many committed Catholics and have a great respect for the integrity of the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t like seeing it trampled.

“Well, in my specific case, some of it is I can’t, in an honest way, bein’ all non-religious and all. But even on top of this, I’m refusing to recognize the validity of the debate, much as I would if someone started debating (though this is only formally, not morally equivalent) slavery based on stuff about sons of Ham and biblical references to slavery in the ancient world.” You make a good point here. You are unable to engage the debate because you are “non-religious and all”. Further, you cannot recognize the validity of the debate. That’s the thing. The idea that heading a church is a right, or a priviledge, or a gift ascribed to superior people, is an inherently non-Christian idea. In fact, I would argue that it is a distinctly American idea. Pastors are the folks who sit at the “head of the class”, so to speak. They are up front, and make major decisions about the future of the church. Hence, in the capitalist model, they have achieved something. But it isn’t about achievement, it is about calling. God has not called me to be a pastor. Why? Because I’m not good enough? Because I am not smart enough? Because, gosh darn it, people don’t like me? No! He didn’t call me because, well, he didn’t. It’s his thing, not mine. He has gifted me differently. His decision does not make me one iota smaller, or weaker. It makes me who I am. In fact, if I embraced this idea that I should be a pastor, God’s calling be damned (so to speak), I would become a smaller person. I would be defying his will. So, yes. If you don’t believe that Christ died for our sins. If you think that the Bible has a lot of great stories and some of it is true… Then, yeah, i don’t see where you would begin to understand the argument.

David S As best I can determine from my encounters, I think the example you cite is an exception. When I was in high school in the late 50′s, priests and brothers constituted most of the faculty. There were multiple priests at each of the parishes around the city. Nuns were educating the grade schools. By the 90′s, the “new” all-boys high school (built in 1960) had closed and been converted to office space for the diocese. Grade schools were staffed primarily by “lay” teachers (not nuns). One priest per parish was typical. Now, churches in the poorer parts of town are becomming “mission churches” (no full time priest). Springfield, Illinois is not a bastion of liberalism. I do not doubt your integrity, but all the signs I read say that there is a decline in the number of priests and nuns and also a decline in parochial schools and parishes (in poorer parts of cities). The problem is that (male) leadership of dioceses and the Vatican are unwilling to acknowledge what is happening.I think that if the leadership continues on this course, in another 15 years or so there wil be four “viable” parishes in Springfield, with one priest per parish. And that is typical of what is happening… In my view…

Women will not be ordained into the Eucharistic priestood in the Catholic and Orthodox churches due to reasons of imagry, historical Biblical symbolism (male blood sacrifice) an a few others. That this is tied to what some may consider politics or power plays is unfortunate.So some other things could develop that could imply more leadership roles along some other lines. What these could be is an open question.

Instead of being critical, judging, going off on detours, how about rolling up your sleeves and your minds and getting out there to do ministry. It is not like our world is in such great shape we can afford to miss the main thing. Sara (I’m sorry, Rev. Sara), this argument is tantamount to a cartoon character looking over your shoulder and saying, “What’s that?”, then running away when you look. “Hey, don’t pay attention to me while break down the small teachings of Scripture and the church, you have important stuff to do!” The Bible tells us repeatedly that our ways are not God’s ways, and that our wisdom is foolishness to him (and vice versa). God’s wisdom tells us that men and women are reciprocal. That each is a piece in a two-piece puzzle. Particular roles in the household, in parenting, and in the church. For example, if God didn’t intend for a mother to have a particular relationship with her child that was very distinct from the father’s, why would he make it necessary for the baby to be at her breast for hours daily? That separates the motherly and fatherly relationships to a great degree. Our modern “sensibilities” tell us many things about the Bible and the church: that they’re antiquated, repressed, oppressive and misogynistic. But they only seem that way because we’ve allowed ourselves to place our culture at the center of our faith. We try to make the faith peg fit into the culture hole, and if it doesn’t we reshape the faith. We’ve got it backwards. When these debates crop up they are often compared (by progressives and liberals) to racism. As though it is a new revelation that it is wrong. But it’s not. Racism is addressed in the Bible, though you may choose not to see it. There are major themes of race in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus talking to the woman at the well, and Philip baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch…even that the Gospel was taken to the Gentiles at all! These groups, which were traditionally considered inferior by the Jews, were treated as equal by Jesus. The equality of the races was addressed then. One day the catholic church will come around and evolve in their understanding of what God is doing in our world and who God is. Women are the best fit for ministry, ordination, pastoral care, teaching, preaching and leadership in the church. The equal importance of the genders were addressed then, also. Women were the first to discover the empty tomb of Jesus. The first place Paul and Silas went after leaving prison in Acts 16 was the home of Lydia. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians that not only does the wife’s body belong to her husband, but his body also belongs to her. This doesn’t mean anything to us, in fact to many it’s wrong to say a person’s body belongs to anyone else, even their spouse. But in a culture where women are seen as only a notch above personal property, this is clearly a statement of equality. But through all of this, the roles of the genders don’t change. I wonder why that is. Probably because the rich, white men still wanted all the power, right? Oh, right, they were poor and Hebrew. My mistake. And it seems that people state their level of ordination as a way to validate their viewpoint. If I’m a trained minister and theology student in a denomination that doesn’t ordain (I work in a Lutheran church but I’m not actually Lutheran), what title can I use to validate my own view? Pastor? Minister? The (Al)Most Rev.? Let me know. Mike Hayes -If you’re not going to give an example outside of Springfield, then David’s example of Lincoln is just as likely a signal of the trend as yours. More so if people are actually saying they went there because of the bishop’s orthodoxy. In my view… (Do you see how annoying that is?)

The last one was me–I got cut off in my arrogance–maybe that’ll learn me…

Mark P. – I agree with a fair bit of your last comment (given the differences in our views, at least!) – a few things: “my main issue is your presumptive nature of speaking . . .betraying some serious contempt of the old and the contemporary snobbishness of every arrogant generation ” And in many ways I’m not like that – I grow heirloom veggies, have more than a few battered ’60s/70s back-to-nature/old-timey-wisdom tomes around, trying to remember where I just read a fascinating article about a family that’s living this really low-carbon-emitting lifestyle, including stuff picked up from the Amish – and my background’s in archaeology, to boot. Ideally, we’d be able to take the wisdom of the past, test it against thr reality of the future, and combine it with the knowledge of the future, or something like that.The problem is – well, Mike Hayes touched on it when he mentioned ‘folks agreeing to disagree’. I’ve come to feel that these sorts of things – sexism, etc. – can’t be resolved by rational discussion – as the saying goes, to paraphrase, you can’t argue someone out of a position they never argued themselves into. So if that won’t work . . . (Of course, one can argue that I personally have no standing here, no right to stick my nose in, and, well, that’s probably true.) Both you and kevin s. make a similar point, that being a priest isn’t a perk, right, or ‘benefit package’. And I can understand that – there are even secular semi-equivalents (like the idea that anyone who wants to be President probably isn’t the best choice) and agree. (In my tradition, there’s the idea that people seeking to convert to Judaism have to overcome repeated discouragement, not just as a sign of seriousness, but because really, what kind of fool wants to be obliged to follow 613 commandments when they can get by just as well with just 7? [simplified version])Certainly, any woman who wants to be a priest just for political/status/prestige reasons (as often happened with men in European history) is unlikely to make a good one. But the fact that there have been even Popes who sought not service but worldly power isn’t used to bar men from such positions! Kevin, you write: “That’s the thing. The idea that heading a church is a right, or a priviledge, or a gift ascribed to superior people, is an inherently non-Christian idea. Perhaps. But 1) The Church hierarchy is made up of people, people immersed in culture and history, just as Christianity-as-practiced-and-understood-by-people has existed in particular times and places. Have such people, and their understanding of faith, been entirely unaffected by long-standing traditions about gender, power, and leadership? 2) I don’t think proponents of ordination for women are demanding any sort of special rights – that they specifically, individually, and unusually deserve to be awarded priestly status and get all sorts of bonuses. Instead – whatever one might think of specific tactics or actions – the claim seems to be that women-as-a-group are just as qualified (no more, no less) to serve as men-as-a-group. I’m not putting this well, but -kevin, you write about how heading a church isn’t an achievement, but a calling; one gift, one responsibility out of many. I don’t know much about this, and of course can only understand it though my particular set of beliefs. But given that having a calling is presumably an interior state that isn’t directly testable by people (except through behavior, etc.), than how can one confidently state that individual women could not be called to such a role? Mark P: “-Only if you assume that leadership is a superior position. If it s NOT, then you could as easily say, It treats men as lesser because it makes men HAVE to be leaders ” Does this feel convincing to you? Again, I find it hard to believe that the actual humans involved are so insulated from the society in which they live. But regardless, than why are women-as-a-group being prevented from benig treated this way? Elmo: “ God’s wisdom tells us that men and women are reciprocal. That each is a piece in a two-piece puzzle. Particular roles in the household, in parenting, and in the church.” Again, I’m coming from a very different place, but isn’t it possible that some of these roles come not from God (or the closest equivalent here, nature), but from people? Certainly we’ve seen some “particular roles” rightfully discarded (unless you think that women shouldn’t be doctors or scientists or CEOs or anything else, but only housewives, regardless of what they might want) “When these debates crop up they are often compared (by progressives and liberals) to racism” Yes. And one of the reasons, besides very general similarity, is that many proponents of slavery and racism is general used references to scripture and Christianity to justify their beliefs and actions. (While I’m quite ignorant in this area, what I’ve read inclines me to agree with you and Mark about the Gospel and early Christianity being (socially) revolutionary in many ways. Didn’t matter). “For example, if God didn’t intend for a mother to have a particular relationship with her child that was very distinct from the father’s, why would he make it necessary for the baby to be at her breast for hours daily? That separates the motherly and fatherly relationships to a great degree. Again, we’re going to look at this in very different ways, but something we can both recognize is that humans are mammals – that is human women give birth to live young and nourish them using mammary glands, something our species shares with animals ranging from chimps to bats to horses to cats. Where one goes from there, I dunno. Nor is it clear from the fact that we’re mammals that certain very rigid gender roles – ones that may have been sensible or vital in earlier times but seem pointless or counterproductive today – are justified. Today we have formula and breast pumps and bottles and refrigeration. What does that mean? Well, for starters, that many babies who would have died in other times and places get to live. What else does it mean? Well, that would be a bit of a digression . . .

Oh, and Elmo, I have to admit, ‘(Al)Most Rev.’ is pretty funny. But I like Mike’s ‘in my view . . .’ thing. Humility, eh?

Dan,Good thoughts, you use your words well. I addressed the “in my view…” thing on another comment page, but basically it seems insincere, since he states his position as emphatically as any of us, but then throws that in at the end. It may be sincere, but anyway… If you’re going to say that women have to nurse children because we’re mammals, etc, then you have to take that to the logical conclusion that God intended us to have specific, very rigidly adhered to roles in the family. Animals have gender roles within their “family” unit, and they stick to them. If you don’t want to go with that, that’s ok. However, I don’t think technology is an excuse to jettison God’s intent for any situation. We may have breast pumps and formula, but most doctors will tell you the “breast is best” and psychologists will say that children have a natural connection with their mothers. It’s fact. My reasoning for mentioning the connection to race issues in the arguments of many progressives was just to point out that race issues were addressed in the Gospels and New Testament writings. Just because they were subsequently ignored and other scripture twisted in the debates doesn’t make the truth about race told in Scripture any different. Likewise, just because the issue of women’s role in the church as addressed in the Bible has been ignored or twisted to suppress their participation, and relegate them to home lives that many women didn’t want, doesn’t discredit the way Scripture addresses it. There is a wonderful example of a Godly woman at the end of Proverbs. Twenty-two verses dedicated to the description of a “Wife of Noble Character.” She not only ran the home, but she ran a business in the marketplace, made deals to buy land, taught her children with wisdom, served the poor. She clearly led a full life outside the home as well as inside. The home that I understand to have been one of the main meeting places for the church in Philippi belonged to a woman named Lydia, who was a dealer in purple cloth (which, I’m sure you know, was hard to come by). She was (presumably)single, and wealthy. I do believe that women can be doctors and lawyers and CEO’s, and we have seen some “particular roles” discarded, especially the idea that women couldn’t be educated or succeed outside the home. Those were foolish, and they didn’t square with Scripture. Have such people, and their understanding of faith, been entirely unaffected by long-standing traditions about gender, power, and leadership? The truth of our fallen state, our tendency toward sin and selfishness, and our inability to live up to God’s ideal has never been a strong argument for changing or discarding the ideal. What we should do is strive harder. To say that some, even many, of the church’s leaders in the past and present have been affected by one social construction of gender, power, and leadership doesn’t mean that we should give in to another.I’ve come to feel that these sorts of things – sexism, etc. – can’t be resolved by rational discussion – as the saying goes, to paraphrase, you can’t argue someone out of a position they never argued themselves into. So if that won’t work . . . (Of course, one can argue that I personally have no standing here, no right to stick my nose in, and, well, that’s probably true.) First, I don’t think this is an issue of sexism, per se, because that implies that we think women are “unfit” for particular roles, or inferior in general, but that’s not the case.Anyway, I think the reason “rational argument” is ineffective to a degree is that we’re arguing from two different foundational points. One which believes that Scripture should be read and interpreted through the lens of contemporary society, the other believing that society should be viewed through the lens of Scripture. Our differences remain unresolved because you, as a non-Christian, and many progressives, think that because culture is so much more advanced now, we know better than they did back then, so when the Bible and our cultural ideologies disagree, we should go with the culture. I believe, as I think Kevin S. and Mark P. do, that culture may have improved in some ways, but overall is no better than it was 2000 years ago. And despite the technological advances we’ve made, we are no wiser, more loving, or less sinful than the ancients. So, when the Bible and our cultural positions disagree, we should go with the Bible. If we never square on that point, agreement is an unattainable goal.

“(Of course, one can argue that I personally have no standing here, no right to stick my nose in, and, well, that’s probably true.)” Isolating oneself with only agreeable companions is foolish, so I appreciate commentary from a different point-of-view. I am, after all, a traditional conservative posting on a progressive evangelical blog. “Does this feel convincing to you?” One reason you don’t feel convinced are, like you said, cultural. The other, I’d say, is good old original sin which makes people put the wrong emphasis in the wrong place and envy the wrong things, pursue the wrong pleasures. I’m sure many people (and sometimes I tend to think this way too) consider leadership superior. But, like kevin s pointed out, that’s an unBiblical and non-Christian frame of mind. The job for a Church, then, isn’t to bow to cultural biases and flawed priorities… rather, her job is to reassert the Biblical standard and truly Christ-like methods of thinking.

jesse, “it’s always amazed me how so many people claim to be Catholic yet openly rebel against the church’s teachings. Do you just get to pick and choose which teachings you adhere to? Isn’t it all or nothing?” This is not applicable only to Catholics, jesse. I doubt there is a religion extant to which EVERY member adheres to EVERY tenet. Heck, in my day, I knew Catholics that ate met on Fridays!!! I knew Catholics who used birth control. And it isn’t merely a matter of ‘picking and choosing’, either. If one sees an injustice within the Church, how does one go about working to change it for the better? (And yes, I know, change is anathema to many denominations.) Pentecostals now accept divorce and re-marriage. Even Southern Baptists no longer support slavery. Institutions change or they die – whether you like it or not.

It’s one thing to dissent in a gathering that claims to be merely a fellowship of believers; dissention and rebellion takes on a whole new meaning when it is in an organization claiming to be the sole spiritual authority on earth. People continually seem to think of the Roman Catholic Church as just another denomination of Protestantism…

mark, that’s because they are ignorant. But the current problem w/ the Catholic church (and this comes from a contemplative mystic that is currently fusing many of the different spiritual paths in Christianity) is that it worships itself over Jesus. Oops did I say that outloud? Yep. The Catholic Church does a great deal of good for the world, so I am not trashing it or saying it’s non-Christian or evil but just like any human institution power corrupts and abosulte power corrupts absolutely. I fear that the Catholic church sometimes puts the church above people and I wonder if that is what they are doing now. There are women there that want to lead but because of tradition and a denial of history (there were women bishops and leaders w/n the church- contrary to what the established tradition may be) they can’t. I don’t see that as just.p

Women in ministry is a heart tugging issue for me and I wish I had the right answer. I do believe I can say that just because the church endorses something and you feel that’s not what God intended doesn’t make you a bad practicing “whatever”. To me if that was the test then Jesus couldn’t have been a good practicing Jewish man because he went against practically everything the leaders of the church stood for. For me he is the one I want to immulate. Not of course going against everything leadership but going with what God is showing to be true and right. Of course my problem with this one is that I am not Jesus and I sin so I have to take into considering whether what I desire is from the flesh or actually from the Holy Spirit. I look at the church today and it’s divisions not only amongst the believer’s within it’s own small church community but the inability to cross demoninational lines and my heart grieves. I go into church and in so many ways, most seem to be just going thru the motions, what is expected, what is tradition. A handful within the body have passion, have desire, have a deep heart felt almost defeaning scream to want others to know what they got. And some of these are women. Stuck in the cunundrum of feeling that they are supposed to be silent, they aren’t supposed to lead because many tell them this couldn’t be from God, it’s not scriptural. Then I read scripture and see remarkable women who led. I see the words Prophetess and deaconess, what’s a good Christian women to do? My heart says that if a women feels called to be in leadership, a passion to serve the Lord – she should do so. There’s just not a whole lot of geniune love out there for the Lord and what does God really want. God wants souls to be saved and if it comes thru the calling of a women then how can God be discontented or disturbed by that.My Jesus hung on a tree which was a curse in the OT. Yet, he is the savior of the world. All who come to him, believe in him are saved. He does it, we just are so abundantly blessed that he has loved us so.

“Jesus couldn’t have been a good practicing Jewish man” Well, He certainly didn’t fit into the Jewish orthodoxy, so you’re kind of right. He destroyed the temple, after all (though He did rebuild). And He rip the temple veil in two. Look, you’re still conflating Catholic with good. I’m a Protestant, so I’m not slandering her when I say she is a Protestant. Only that she’s not a Catholic… and she is not, because she is following her heart above the authority of the Church (that’s pretty much the definition of an individualistic Protestant there). “how can God be discontented or disturbed by that.” God is not pining up in heaven, looking for a little help. He is Sovereign, and He is not served by human hands. Let’s not put God in a position of having any need of us.

I’ve had the privilege of meeting a number of the womenpriests, and they impressed me as holy, faith-filled, prophetic women. I believe that the Spirit is working through them, creating a renewed priesthood. Their vision is not “add women and stir,” which is what occurred in the oft-mentioned Episcopal Church, but a model of priesthood based on service, not hierarchical power.

I was forwarded Rose Marie Berger’s article on the women Priests movement. I thought you all would like to know that in Canada , we have a very active circle of communities, surrounding and mentoring this movement. Michele Birch-Conery, our first Canadian woman priest, lives here on Vancouver Island. At present, we are in process of planning ordinations, more particularly the one in Toronto on the May 24th weekend. It will take place in the Willowdale United church on May 27. You may find some other interesting data on these websites to cull more information from. The Ministry Without Borders website is about to be updated, but the information is still most interesting. The Corpus Canada website will shortly be publishing its quarterly on the website as well as on paper to subscribers. May we all continue to bring forth , through the power of the Holy Spirit, new life in the Church. http://www.ministry-without-borders.org. http://www.corpuscanada.org.

“Ecclesial gag rules are rarely the right tool for advancing human dignity.” –R. M. Berger What is the “right tool”? Disobedience to legitimate authority? In the Catholic religion, human dignity indeed lies beyond the natural difference between the sexes and finds its fulfillment in the supernatural goal of eternal salvation, an other-worldly end. These “womenpriests” are confusing that proper end of the faith with their mundane, political goal of denying the very real differences in the nature of men and women.