Maureen Fiedler reports in the NCR about the American Catholic Council that just met in Detroit:
1. The issue of women’s ordination, and gender equality generally, has risen to a new level of prominence on the roster of reform. It is at the top of many reformers’ lists — men as well as women. It’s clear as never before: the denial of women’s equality just makes no sense to most Catholics anymore, especially these Catholics.
2. The issue of gay and lesbian rights has become mainstream in the movement, just as in society at large. It’s not a “fringe” issue for Dignity or New Ways Ministry; it’s everybody’s issue. And of course, over the years, Call to Action has had a lot to do with that.
3. New and independent communities are flowering as never before. If the Church is a garden, new sprouts are proliferating. There have always been tall trees and shrubs (cathedral and parish communities) in the church. But now, there are new flowerings: intentional communities — lots of them, the communities of the Roman Catholic Women Priests’ movement, the “Ecumenical” and “American” Catholic churches and dioceses, even new religious orders like Green Mountain Monastery in Vermont. Most of these are outside the purview of the hierarchy.
4. The “priesthood of the faithful” was visible. When the celebrant at the Pentecost Sunday mass said the words of consecration, hundreds of people in the congregation chimed in without prodding or instructions in the program. Why? I suspect that many do it routinely in their intentional communities, and they believe that they have the power, along with the priest, to call for the presence of Christ.
It is hard to see how these people can remain in the Catholic Church: they are on a collision course with Rome. They want women priests, married homosexual priests, and lay celebration of the Eucharist.
Their theology puts them outside the bounds of historical Catholicism. Rome might ignore that, but their practice threatens the integrity of the sacramental system, at least as Rome sees it.
Sociologically, this movement is aging. I have noticed that as people age their minds sometimes get stuck. My late father-in-law (a Harvard, Harvard Law graduate) could never believe that Communism had really ended in Europe – he continued to fight the battles of his youth.
Similarly, I think these people are fighting the battles of their youth, not realizing that conditions have changed. They also are very parochial geographically and historically – they seem to have no concept that unity with the Orthodox is the highest priority in healing the unity of the Church , and that their proposals would end any possibility of unity. They lack any historical perspective of the post-Enlightenment feminization of Christianity and the chronic lack of lay men in the Church; and they have no sense of the needs and culture of the Hispanic community which will be the Church in the United States.
Also these small, intentional communities (read splinter groups) are susceptible to manipulation by narcissistic con artists, even more than communities that have a structure of accountability and discipline – however much they have been ignored by the hierarchy.
I suspect you’re right that the movement is a bunch of aging hippies, but an underlying problem remains for the RCC, which is the lack of substantive teaching on these points.
For example, “Jesus only appointed men as apostles” is a lousy argument against women’s ordination. The church needs to make its case in a clear and compelling way. Telling everybody to shut up and obey isn’t going to work.
Crowhill, it is indeed a lousy argument, but whether a clear and compelling case can be made on other grounds remains to be seen. I myself am not convinced either way. Based on the experiences of other churches, I suspect women’s ordination in the present state of things would be a bad idea; but can one credibly argue that it will still be a bad idea in a thousand years? I am willing to be convinced, but “because I say so” simply isn’t enough.
In any case, from a practical standpoint the problem the Church faces is not the movement per se, but the fact that many of that movement’s core beliefs are normative for the younger generation simply because of the world they grew up in. The notion that women are intrinsically unfit for the priesthood strikes most of them as having no more credibility than the (now abandoned) refusal of Mormonism to ordain people of color. And in many cases they remain in the Church only because they assume that Rome will eventually come around to their way of thinking; they trust the Church to do the right thing in the long run, and opening the priesthood to women is, to them, indisputably the right thing to do. But if Rome issues an infallible and irreformable decree forever prohibiting the ordination of women, then that assumption will have been proved wrong, and as a result vast numbers of people–not just “aging hippies” but the bulk of the younger generation–may well head for the doors.
Before Ratzinger became Pope he said that the Church needed to be cleansed of its “filth” and that the result might be a Church that was smaller but purer. At the time many of us assumed he was talking about purging the Church of its sexual predators and their episcopal enablers; but in the event it appears that the people who are going to get purged will be those for whom “shut up and obey” isn’t enough, while the predators and enablers continue to be protected and even rewarded.
I find that very sad, if (at least in retrospect) all too predictable.
Sardath, if you are right about what the Pope meant by “filth,” then it proves what I’ve said all along about Catholicism: It’s not interested in God but in power, prestige, class privledge (for the prelates) and a sense of entitlement (again, for the prelates). The Church has “lorded it over” the laity for centuries, in violation of Christ’s original command in Matthew 20:25 . It likes doing so. That power is the Church’s ultimate idol.
even more than communities that have a structure of accountability and discipline …
Really, Leon? Where do you see that structure being exercised? Where do you see Canon Law being implemented? Catholicism isn’t about “accountability” or “discipline,” Leon. It’s about raw power exercised in medieval fashion by leaders w/monarchistic pretentions and upper-class arrogance…and I’m not one of these “aging hippies” who supports what they support.
Sardath, I think the argument is completely ended by 1 Timothy 2 (and related passages), but I know the RCC doesn’t like its doctrines to be judged by something objective like the text of the Bible — because that would establish some authority over them, to which they are accountable. Rather, they want to be over every other authority and assert their own right to interpret every authority.
The Beatification of JP II also gave pause to many Orthodox also Leon.
How will the RC Church reconcile the title “First Among Many” with that of ,”Supreme Pontiff” for the Orthodox?
You are correct about the charlatans , there are quite a few calling themselves “traditional” already.
I might add …….quite a few of the fakes are under the authority of Rome.
Leon — does your blogging software allow you to put a “recent comments” list in the right-hand area? That would be helpful, if it can be done. Thanks.
Crowhill, 1 Timothy 2 settles the argument if one accepts 1 Timothy itself as being apostolic (most biblical scholars do not) and if one accepts chapter 2 as normative for today (many theologians do not). And this is not just a case of throwing out stuff we don’t like; Paul himself, in 1 Corinthians, admits that not everything he teaches is a command received from the Lord, and therefore not everything he writes is on the same level of authority.
But even assuming Pauline authority for 1 Timothy, note that it does not say “the Lord does not permit a woman to have authority over men” but rather “I do not permit” it. And in fact we know from the Old Testament that on occasion, at least, the Lord not only allowed women to have authority over men, but commanded and enabled them to do so. And yes, I know all the arguments for these being abnormal situations and such–but these are all human explanations and excuses that are not found in the text itself and could therefore be completely wrong.
In any case, I agree with you that the Catholic Church is reluctant to allow itself and its practices to be judged by a literal reading of scripture; if it did, 1 Timothy 2 would not only forbid women’s ordination but also outlaw clerical celibacy, and probably defrock many of today’s bishops for failure to meet the baseline character tests contained in that chapter.
I think Sardeth and Crowhill have both reached to the core of the problems the Papacy is facing and has been facing for centuries.The massive public revelations regarding the pedophile and sexual perversions of clerics have spotlighted this debate and magnified scrutiny by the laity on all other forms of disciplines both practiced and ignored by the Hierarchy. One thing is for sure.A diabolical confusion reigns everywhere thoughout all societies in the world today.
“Sociologically, this movement is aging. I have noticed that as people age their minds sometimes get stuck. My late father (a Harvard, Harvard Law graduate) could never believe that Communism had really ended in Europe – he continued to fight the battles of his youth.”
Leon perhaps your father knew that history tends to repeat itself or that old iseologies do not die, they just change faces?
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/i99ht_026_ColdWar.html
Crowhill, JPII’s letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is heavily laden with scriptural references, including the Pauline epistles. Just a guess, but I don’t think that appeals to authority, either biblical or sacred tradition, would sway the American Catholic Council or the general Catholic public who are more concerned with emotional appeals to fairness.
The parish that i go r busrting with young latinos families worry about immigration and jobs and NOT about some STUPID NON sense about bitter and angry disidents like ‘American Catholic Council ‘.
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis may be “heavily laden with scriptural references”, but few of them actually have any clear relevance to the issue of women’s ordination. And note especially what is NOT cited: the “magic bullet” text of 1 Timothy 2:12-14 is conspicuous by its absence.
Instead, OS offers the following arguments:
(1) Christ did not ordain women, so the Church can’t either. (But Christ also did not ordain any Gentiles. Does that mean all Catholic priests must be Jews?)
(2) Mary did not receive ordination, so other women can’t either. (But Mary never had sex, and she bore her only child by virtue of divine intervention. Does that mean all Catholic women must do likewise?)
(3) Denying ordination to women has been the “constant practice of the Church”. (This is one of the classic excuses of a failing bureaucracy: “We’ve always done it this way.” Constant practices do not become best practices just because they are constant. And in fact over the centuries there have been numerous other “constant practices of the Church” that were ultimately abandoned when they were recognized as incompatible with the gospel, or even simply as detrimental to maintaining the Church’s credibility in a changing environment.)
(4) The “living teaching authority” of the Church has consistently taught against it. (But this amounts to little more than another classic excuse of a failing bureaucracy: “Because I’m in charge and I say so.”)
None of these is a winning argument with those who are not already convinced.
MC — You’re right that the RCC cites Scripture, but there are various ways to do that.
You can cite Scripture as “this is the authority for this position,” or you can cite Scripture as “you can also see this principle here.”
I believe the RCC tends to cite Scripture more in the second sense.
Also, whenever you hear a Catholic authority defend the male priesthood, the argument you always here is “Jesus only appointed male apostles.”
Nevertheless, I agree with you that liberals will never be persuaded by appeals to authority. But I don’t think it’s wise for the church to try to appeal to or to convince liberals. They should be speaking to the faithful.
In fact, I would say that much of the lameness we see in the Catholic Church is precisely this. Rather than speaking forthrightly to the faithful, they leave the sense (or, at least they leave this sense with me) that they are always apologizing and trying to meet skeptics and liberals on their own terms.
Crowhill, that’s very true- there is a timidity in many of our leaders. Perhaps they think the approach is pastoral but as those who know all the ways to catch a fly, vinegar will catch it just as well as honey better! I think that this tendency of the “lameness” you speak of is especially keen in priests and bishops who are on a career ladder. They seem more eager to please everyone rather than speak boldly, knowing that someone is bound to be offended.
Ignore the typo of “better” in the previous comment. I should stop commenting after a certain time in the evening to allow my brain a rest :).