Women in the church and the art of the possible
Print Friendly VersionBy JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Rochester, Minnesota
Whenever I speak on Catholic affairs – no matter what the ostensible topic of my address – there’s an informal canon of questions almost certain to arise during Q&A, and few occur with more regularity than that of women in the church.
Yesterday, for example, I spoke to a gathering sponsored by the Diocese of Winona, Minnesota, titled “Called to be Faithful and Prophetic: Reading the Signs of the Times in a Complex World.” Bishop Bernard Harrington opened the event by explaining that it’s a reflection on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops document “Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility.”
The gathering seemed to attract people from a wide variety of points of view, ranging from fairly conservative to fairly liberal, with most folks clumped somewhere in the middle.
The diversity became apparent as questions about gender issues in the church surfaced. One woman, who called herself a “very traditional” Catholic, asked if declining vocations to the priesthood are related to the widespread use of altar girls after the Second Vatican Council. A man asked if the church shouldn’t focus on renewing the all-male priesthood, and especially the fatherly and brotherly bonds between a bishop and his priests – implicitly, he seemed to suggest, as opposed to “empowering” women. Meanwhile, several women, both lay and religious, asked rather pointedly what’s being done to “hear the voice of women” in the church. One expressed concern that “macho” attitudes sometimes associated with parts of the global south could become even more prominent as the north/south transition in Catholicism plays out. A veteran pastoral minister spoke movingly – though, notably, without anger – about the pain she’s sometimes experienced as a woman in a man’s system.
Here’s more or less what I said in response.
First, while no one directly put the question of women’s ordination on the table, we might as well deal with it head-on. Given Pope John Paul II’s 1994 document Ordinatio sacerdotalis, which stated that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, and … this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful,” there will be no official movement on this question in any short-term future scenario I can imagine. I’m aware that some Catholics dream of revisiting the issue somewhere down the line, and I have no crystal ball that tells me where the church will be in 200 years. What I can say is that the Catholic Church does not lurch from position to position, especially on something this sensitive, and at a minimum anyone living in hope of rapid evolution will likely be disappointed.
Further, it’s correct that Pope Benedict and other church leaders see the revitalization of the priesthood as a top priority, including the fraternal nature of relations between bishops and priests – especially in light of the strain under which those bonds have been placed in some parts of the world as a result of the sexual abuse crisis.
However, the right Catholic answer when faced with a seeming disjunction is rarely “either/or,” but “both/and.” Hence one hopes that strengthening the all-male character of the priesthood does not have to come at the expense of greater efforts to hear the voice of women. We ought to be able to do both at once.
In reality, there are vast areas in the life of the church where authority and responsibility can be exercised without sacramental ordination. On the parish level, the Catholic church in the United States and elsewhere could not operate without the contributions made by women as directors of religious education, liturgists, pastoral associates, and in myriad other capacities. Roughly 25 percent of the diocesan chancellors in America are now women, and one hopes that trend will accelerate until it hovers around 50 percent, better reflecting the percentage of women in the church. Women today serve as diocesan spokespersons, as general councils for dioceses, as chief financial officers, and in a wide variety of other capacities. These efforts can become much more systematic, especially in positions of high public visibility. (The American bishops’ conference is presently hiring a new communications director, for example, and all things being equal, it would be exceedingly positive symbolism if that post went to a lay woman).
Even in the Vatican, one can detect “baby steps” in this regard. In 2004, Pope John Paul II for the first time appointed a woman to a superior’s-level position in an office of the Roman Curia, naming Italian Salesian Sr. Enrica Rosanna as under-secretary of the Congregation for Religious. It’s true that a cleric co-signs letters from the congregation that exercise the pope’s delegated “power of jurisdiction,” but nevertheless the appointment put Rosanna in a position of leadership in the universal church. In the same year, John Paul named Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon as President of the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences, and appointed two female theologians to the International Theological Commission, both firsts. (One was an American, Sr. Sara Butler). While these are admittedly small moves, and perhaps open to the charge of “tokenism,” they nevertheless set precedents upon which one can build.
Moving more comprehensively in this direction is important, it seems to me, for two reasons.
First, church teaching unambiguously supports the full equality of women, and offering the world models of female leadership is thus an important way of demonstrating that we mean what we say.
Second, doing so could also perhaps allow us to approach the conversation about the priesthood more rationally. Church spokespersons routinely say that the all-male character of the priesthood is not a matter of excluding women from power, because the priesthood is not about power but service. The practical reality, however, is that ordination has always been the gateway to power in the church, if not theologically then sociologically. If the church were more systematic about the full representation of women in every area of life that doesn’t require ordination, it would perhaps reduce some of the suspicion that the teaching on the priesthood is really a smokescreen designed to preserve a system of male privilege.
I recognize that for some Catholics, including many deeply faithful Catholic women, none of this amounts to a fully satisfying answer. Yet under the rubric of “the art of the possible,” it seems to me to be the best answer one can give about what can be done under the present circumstances to help the church “breathe with both lungs” – in this case, not East and West, but male and female.
One further observation about the Rochester event.
To state the obvious, discussions about women in the church often stir deep passions. They involve fundamental Catholic values which are sometimes not easy to reconcile – fidelity to tradition, the role of authority, and commitment to emancipation and equality – not to mention historical resentments about the way power in the church has sometimes been exercised.
Given the diversity in the Rochester audience, I’m sure that the question about altar girls made some cringe, just as I’m sure that others were turned off by repeated references to “injustices” in the church. Yet there were no gasps or groans, and no interrupting of people as they spoke. Questions and answers were heard with respect, and while people occasionally spoke with conviction, they did so without histrionics. (By the way, I don’t mean to give the impression that our conversation was largely devoted to women in the church. It wasn’t, but the point is rather that when it and other contentious matters surfaced, people managed to listen to differing perspectives with graciousness).
While I doubt we solved any problems in the church yesterday, I couldn’t help but think the event offered a sign that Catholics of differing outlooks can at least talk things out with patience. In a church that often struggles to foster such a climate, that alone was enough to make it an encouraging experience.
Jaimeramon ~ You sound like
Jaimeramon ~ You sound like a person I could disagree with; a person who I could respect in conversation and debate ~ a faith and faithful searcher ~ and learn from.
The John Paul II Millstone
The John Paul II Millstone www.jp2m.blogspot.com
Go for it AnnieO. You go girl!
Learn also about the John Paul II Millstone www.jp2mblogspot.com
I'm not sure where this will
I'm not sure where this will be posted, coming in late to a conversation, and many of you apparently posting all over the place (what did they say to me about that??), but I can assure you that the first postings on here are full of sarcasm. There would seem to be an amazing need to chase women out or put them in their place in many of these postings. But just because it is very common, does not mean that someone should not speak up again and again. I haven't even read all of this, partly because it is in such disorder and partly because one doesn't have to to see how disrespectful some of you are being.
So, in case my name doesn't give a clue, let me just say this right out loud. I am woman. There's my bias. And some of you are simply disrespectful people. The big burn for many people is that women just don't leave. Why don't we just leave? We don't have to. You have to live with us. Only God gets to separate the wheat from the chaff, much as some of you would like to decide who is which. And you don't even get to know who is which in this lifetime. what a bummer.
Sorry, AnnieO, but you're
Sorry, AnnieO, but you're trying to apply some affirmative action logic to the mystical Body of Christ and it simply aint going to work. Emphasizing what the Vicar of Christ has spoken about regarding this dead issue of women ordinations is not disrespectful. It always amazes me when catholics, who dissent from core teachings of the Church, cry foul when their disrespect for Catholic teaching is pointed out. In other words, it's okay for them to be disobedient to our Lord's directives, but by golly, anybody who charitably points it out to them is immediately branded as sarcastic or disrespectful. Suffice it to say, when you're faced with the spiritual facts of our Lord's Church, you go off on a tangent about how unappreciated women are. How you connected those dots is amazing.
You do speak the truth when you say that "Only God gets to separate the wheat from the chaff." But this biblical truth has zero application here. Moreover, what biblical principle is at stake regarding the inability for women to be ordained, is voiced in our Lord Jesus' directive: "If you love me, then you will keep my commandments." Yes, Annie0, our Blessed Lord, thru His Vicar on earth, has directed His Catholic Church to be ministered by men priest only. It is God who ordained this fact of life. And when our beloved John Paul, II penned his encyclical on the male priest hood, it was really Heavenly Light given to our Lord's pilgrim Church on earth. If you love our Lord, then you will join the chorus of countless souls here on earth and in heaven, who are so grateful for this encyclical of Truth, in the joyful acclamation: Praise to you O Triune God! Your Light of Truth is again evidence of your being with always until the end of the age.
I love women in the Church. I love our spiritual mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary; I love my wife of 28 years, who has given me six children, and who is the model of charity in my home. How I praise and thank God each and ever day for her aroma of holiness in my household. I respect and appreciate the many women in my parish who offer so much life to our parish family. Suffice it to say, your idea that men like myself would want to ban women from the Church is shocking!
Having said the above, this also must be stated: just as our Lord did not press into staying with Him those who did not believe in consuming His Body and Blood to Have LIFE in them, so, too, should we not press our brothers and sisters to stay with us who persist in their unhealthy spiritual error. Sometimes inviting them to leave is not only the most charitable act we can do for them, but also the fairest measure as well.
Peace
Ohevin, you are so way off
Ohevin, you are so way off track. Read my post. I never said a word about "how unappreciated women are". I never talked about women's ordination at all. What dots are you connecting? I read a couple of posts and reacted to the sarcasm. Yours is dripping, even in your reply to me, which is apparently a reply to someone else or many someone elses. You need to slow down and read what you are replying to.
Frankly, I don't spend a lot of time or energy worrying about women's ordination. It was never my dream or goal in life. And, strangely enough, my professional life is one that allows me to hear confessions and heal wounds and give homilies in ways I never even thought of when I was young. I don't have the least need to be a priest. When I entered religious community when I was young, I wanted to be a religious sister, whose purpose was service to others. And, as John Allen suggests, so without any issues of power and privilege related to them. One of the amazing and "superior" things about women is all the service they do without status, power, or privilege related to them, and no one who knows me would suggest anything other than that about me.
Your statement about only men ministering to or in (?) the church is balderdash. It is not only the ordained clergy who minister in the church, so perhpas you meant to say something else.
Is your invitation to leave one you think you have been given authority to offer? I am presuming that talk of wife and children suggests that you are not a priest or bishop, so perhaps you are a cardinal or something? I don't think I understand your place in the hierarchy, so perhaps you need to share that with all of us. No one has given you authority over anyone else's presence in the Church. You are my brother, not my father, and you have no authority over my coming and going in the Church. If you'd like to discuss the state of my soul, I'll be happy to let you talk with my confessor. But you might be surprised what the response of an ordained male priest would be to you. And he would tell you that you don't have the authority you claim. So, if you can read my two-paragraph post and decide that I should leave the Church, you'll have to figure out how to make that happen, big bro. Unless you think I am going to read your words and say, oh yes, I need to leave the Church because someone online told me I would be happier if I did. Yo, bro. In other words, I think you have blown off course, but I don't have any need that you leave the Church at all. The Father seems to want all the bros and sisters to live together, wheat and chaff. He did the choosing of me, not you. And I'm not going anywhere. I'll assume from your strange "response" to me that you aren't either. So, I guess living with me in the Church could be used by you to develop soem fruits of the Spirit, like patience! I've gots plenty to share, if you be needing some help getting there!
Annie) I stand by words.
Annie)
I stand by words. However, you're right in this regard: these official invitations to leave should come from the Bishops and priest whose responsiblity it belongs to safeguard the Orthodoxy of Christ Church; it's also encumbent upon Christ Stewards to prevent division and scandal from individuals who insist on heretical positions. I only suggested that a person consider leaving due to their heretical belief and unwillingness to assent to Catholic Magisterial Teaching. There is a big difference.
Unfortunately, the last forty plus years many of our bishops and priest here in America have been too caught up in "seeking the approval of men and notlaboring for the love of God and salvation of souls." Pope Benedict spoke of the "rot" that had grown within the Church. Undoudtedly His Holiness had the Catholic American Church in mind. Not only has the "rot" manifested itself in the sexual predation of Bishops and priest upon children, but this spiritual putrification also shows itself in the total lack of spiritual formation and discipline in many facets of the Teaching Church. Fortunately, there are still many good Bishops and priest in the Catholic American Church who labor against great odds to prepare souls for eternity. Also, many of us are prayerfully grateful for the Pontificate of Pope Benedict, who appears to be very much aware of the recent spiritual deformation in the catholic seminaries in America.
I disagree with your opinion that faithful, assenting catholics have to live with dissenting/disobedient ones. If a person were to continue to bring about scandal in his/her recalcitrant and heretical beliefs against Church teaching, and if this person were in my diocese, I and others would be obliged to seek relief from the Ordinary of our Diocese. In our Diocese, if, after having met with the Bishop, this person continued to espouse heretical views and cause scandal and divison, then this person would be asked to leave for the good of the parish community. As we all know, this inivitation to leave is based on Holy Scripture. Martin Luther figured this was his eventual fate and he left of his own accord. 500 years ago a group of heretical bishops buckled under to a knuckled head king, who was a real asshole to women. They also left of their own accord. Unfortunately, St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher and other martrys paid the price for their heresy. These examples illustrate how some people have applied common sense and spared themselves the embarrassment of being asked to leave. They knew that Holy Mother Church was not going to change or refashion Christ Teachings to accomodate their views, so they left and the rest is history.
You ask of my authority to speak in this fashion. This ability for me to do so was imprinted on me 51 years ago when a Jesuit priest Baptized me in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It was given to me when, at the age of 9, a holy Bishop placed his hands on my head and said, "Be filled with the Holy Spirit . . . It is also found in the Act of the Apostles whereby the followers of Christ are told to "instruct and admonish one another." The same holds for you to me. But the difference lies in the simple fact that I am instructing and admnonishing with the teachings of Holy Mother Church; those who hold heretical views that are contray to our Lord's Divine commands do not share this same responsiblity and privilege.
Finally, you say the "Father seems to want us to live together." You use the word "seems." You may want to reconsider this. Our One Triune God, who is Omnicient, does not have to "seem" about anything. Moreover, our Heavely Father wants us to be "one in the Truth." If a person cherishes what the Father's Son teaches via His Vicar on Earth, then that person is one in the Truth with others. Conversely, if a person does not assent to what Christ Vicar teaches, then true unity is not possible. This is a real stumbling block for you and a bad spot to be in.
Thank you for qualifying my statement. I did mean that only ordained men can officially Preside at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by our Lord's Divine command.
Ohevin, Ohevin, where for
Ohevin, Ohevin, where for art thou, Ohevin?
Not that often that I give someone a clear shot at telling me what to recant of, so I'm a bit surprised you are letting the opportunity slide by. But, of course, you may actually have more important things to do...
But let me finish up this interaction, as I "seem" want to do. First, I think your understanding of the authority of priests is a bit askew. Priests don't generally have a lot of authority to deny sacraments, ask people to leave the church, etc. They have more authority to be pastoral with the law of church, and people actually have a lot of room to dispute their authority to deny. Check out canon law a bit. The emphasis on pastoral response is appropriate. So, much more authority moves to the bishops, who would seem unlkely to know about most of these things or to consider them in the same light that you do, with perhaps a greater understanding of both law and pastoring. Or, we can hope. So, what I think you would like as a fall-back routine is that the priest would be notifying the chancery of all faults and deficits within parish members. Gee, a police church...I can hardly wait for that one.
Obviously, you understand when pushed that we can fraternally (or sororally) correct each other, in Christ. but you are saying that you have the authority to correct me while I have none to correct you, because you are good and I am bad. And you get to decide that. Gee, why do I feel like you've stacked the deck somehow? Particularly since I've said nothing heretical at all. At most you can say that you don't like me correcting you for disrespect, and since I said nothing heretical, I guess I'm going to assume that you don't like that because you find me uppity. hmmmmm.......
And let me go ahead and correct my deficient language (but having been considered "objectively deficient" for most of the church's history, it may just be a bad habit) and say this to you: The Father wants us to live together.
And you are welcome for my help in qualifying your statement about who can officially preside at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Please be more careful in the future.
My goodness. I have a real
My goodness. I have a real stumbling block and am in bad spot. What is it that is my stumbling block and what is the bad spot? That I told you that I found your remarks disrespectful? Of that I should recant? You'd better help out here. Oh, I used the word "seems" instead of something definitive as a verb after God? Now there's an altogether new rule. As a pre-Vatican II cradle Catholic, I have no idea how that got to be a rule, because it wasn't way back then. Better give me a little more help here. Just what do you think I need to recant?
You're a woman? (ok that was
You're a woman? (ok that was sarcasm, the rest of this post is not).
It is the constant teaching of the Church that women cannont (not may not) be ordained. Those who wish to be ordained know that they can be ordained in other traditions, but that these traditions lack the sacraments (but if you're throwing out other parts of Catholic theology why not this too?). Those who attempt ordination do seperate themselves from the Church (I don't know the canonistics perfectly, but it would seem on attempting to function as a priest they would excommunicate themselves, if not in the act of attempting ordination). It is not sarcasm to point out that one must choose which is more important: women's ordination or the Eucharist and Confession. (I will admit that there are some sarcastic phrases in there that I missed at first reading, but they point to Englishwomans description of ordained women in glowing terms while criticizing the Church for resisting the Spirit, not at the question being asked).
But then I am upholding the Church teaching, so I must be disrespectful.
Actually, I'm glad that you
Actually, I'm glad that you can see some sarcasm in the comments, but you certainly are not the only one; I appreciate that you stepped forward when others won't stay in the discussion if they don't like it anymore. But you see the jump you make. Now you are suggesting that I said there were some disrespectful remarks because you are upholding Church teaching, when I never said any such thing. What is that twisting of words about? I told you that I haven't even read all this. I just started reading it, and was taken aback--like totally--by sarcasm; I don't even understand how the thread flowed from John Allen's original remarks, because it is all such a jumbled mess. I still haven't read beyond the first few things, so please don't try to pin things on me that I haven't been involved in.
Why do you think it's wrong to criticize the Church? It isn't where the judgment of the Father lies. I understand that St. Therese of Lisieux, the Little Flower, criticized the Church because she thought herself called to the priesthood and she thought the Church wrong to say she wasn't. In fact, the women who are called Doctors in the Church seem to have criticism of the Church and its fathers as part of their charism. Apparently the Father didn't worry about that part when He called them to Himself.
I'm no Bible scholar, but I can read and think and feel. And there is NO strong sense in the New Testament that Jesus worried too much at all about what people thought or if they criticized. His divine mission does not appear to be to come here to correct people's thinking. Does it? Can you actually read Scripture and come away with that theme? I don't think so. Thoughts were not really where He was touching people. It's the heart,....
...or do you all want me to finish the line? So, gee, why don't you give a little and smile a little and laugh a little? The Church is a whole lot stronger than a little criticism. Or do you think not?
FYI: We in the Episcopal
FYI: We in the Episcopal Church hold our sacraments in deep reverence. We believe they were established by Our Savior Jesus Christ and we cherish His continued presence in our Eucharists and Baptisms. We believ that Jesus,Our Christ is a Person of the Trinity and our Redeemer, rather than a mere institutional claim to authority.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
Ephesians (5:15-16)
"Be careful then how you live, not as unwise people but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil. So do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. "
And you believe rightly!
And you believe rightly!
I know you do, and I have
I know you do, and I have nothing against it. I honsetly do think that some of these people would be more at home with the Episcoplalian Church than the Catholic Church, allowing themselves to be consumed by their outrage at perceived injustices cannot be healthy for their souls, can it? By remaining in the Catholic Church they remain bound (in theory) by Catholic belief, including those teachings on the Sacraments (and those of other Christians).
If they are so outraged, would you not welcome them to a place they can find peace?
You know that your last sentence is claimed by all Christians, yes even those Catholics. I personally will go further and proclaim with my fundamentalist friends that Jesus is my personal Lord and Savior, but this line of conversation will only lead to innane bickering.
(as far as the anglican/episcopalian claim to authority, btw, doesn't that go back to a certain divorce case?)
This is really a very funny
This is really a very funny piece, here today. I am a bit surprised by your strategy!
What's funny about it? If
What's funny about it? If one cannot find peace in the Catholic Church, because of doctrine that is not going to change (no matter how much you protest), then should you not seek peace elswhere? If you are certain that the Spirit is elswhere, are you not acting against your conscience in remaining here?
(okay, I admit the humourous tone at the end, I do have a hard time with the Anglican Church (and the spinoff(s) thereof) because its founding is absurd)
The absurdity of God is
The absurdity of God is wiser than men.
heretoday, I have come to
heretoday, I have come to this site several times just for a good laugh at your words. I didn't really expect you to return again, so much as I often find myself "tidying" up sites before I leave them, often well after other folks have moved on. Although I occasionally enjoy this interaction, I find it very unfinished. So, here I was doing some closure, and there you are actually reading it!
I don't mean that it's funny with any sarcasm on my part at all. I find that so funny. 1st, because it is not your style online to get into the 'caring about the mental(?), physical(?), (both) of other people. So, this sudden twist really jumped out at me. It sounds like an unexpected version of the old ploy--why don't you take your toys and leave? Which it actually is, of course. I know from the Ratzinger days that there is a real following for the 'lean mean fighting machine' idea of church. It's not what the church has ever been, and if it has any tradition, it has played out in its conquering (yes, even by the sword) of whole countries, then "converting" them all, somtimes in a whole baptismal sweep. But you can surely see the change from Ratzinger to Benedict--now seeking the 'conversion' of Europe. Does he care if each person accepts everything of tradition...no, he would say...maybe they get there later, now I just want them to pay and pray again. If historical fact, the idea of people having to leave the church because they didn't believe something just isn't a part of our church..and won't ever be. any poll will show you that the majority of catholics don't believe something, and not even Ratzinger really wanted them all to leave, perhaps because there's something he doesn't really believe either. we are just people, not belief machines.
another part that's funny, of course (i could go on and on, but i spend too much of my life on computers, so i won't) is that there are like these two 'voices in the desert' on here, trying to get everyone else to leave--so you can talk to each other?? Wow, that would be fun wouldn't it?
finally, (although not really, of course, I want some coffee), is that you equate disagreeing (you try to call it hysteria or something back in these pages) with a lack of peace or even with some tremendous anger. And that is simply a misunderstanding about peace...where it comes from, how it feels. And some of it is an age thing that I would suggest you don't understand yet from your vantage point. With lots of luck and prayer, maturity brings a very different sense of everything. A person can be at wonderful peace with him/herself and with God, and protest things internally in the church and externally in the world, with all that peace as an asset. And besides, that's where I am mostly, a lot of people get energy from the interaction or the disagreement, just as I'm guessing you do as you hustle documents and websites for information to respond. There is an enjoyment in all this for most people, perhaps more so in this old and rich and diverse tradition than in any other. we enjoy messing with each other--social interaction that's different than in other places.
and finally again, there is the question of where would I go? flowing from all that. You are right that many churches you would like to send me to have their own inauspicious history to deal with. but people who are baptized don't ever have to go anywhere. that is a natural consequence of infant baptisms, and is partly intended to create a religious culture, not just purists who die by the sword. what you actually seem to seek is the return of catholic culture, but you won't get it your way. i'm indeed here to stay.
While it has not been my
While it has not been my main style, it is more of my real persona, but you'll have to trust me on that one. I really do have much more respect for those who followed their conscience, even though it led them out of the Church (shootingstar, for example), then for those who complain that the Spirit is elsewhere and that the Church should be more like the (Anglicans, Episcoplaians, Unitarians, take your pick). Do I wish that people would leave? No, but it is it better for them? Perhaps and I cannot make that judgement. I can point out the hard truth in staying (that the Church is not going to change to suit one's personal beliefs) and the hard truth in leaving ("Lord to who should we go, you have the words of everlasting life"). I do think Ohevin is making too strong of a case for an 'invitation' to leave, the case that I am trying to make is the option to leave.
I don't think that everyone who disagrees with me is not at peace, but there are many who are angry at the Church for some reason or other, who turn that anger into a personal quest to change the Church. These are the people I would counsel to look again at why they remain in the Church, and whether they would not be more at home and peace elsewhere.
Actually, I will trust you
Actually, I will trust you on that one. I didn't really think that you were where Ohevin seems to be, after all. (Oh there is that "seems" again...but I guess that is okay if I leave it with "Ohevin" as the subject...).
It is certainly true that the Church is not going to change to suit my or other's personal beliefs, but it has and does change in relation to the consciousness of the times and the people. Sometimes those who think the Church never changes are being cafeteria historians. The Church has changed in its relationship with women. While it may be that there will never be women priests in the church, it is also possible that there will be. John Allen's analysis, which started all this, presents a balanced view of the issue. The bigger point to me, however, as with him, is the need for models of female leadership in the church. Short of those who prefer a homosocial decision-making approach to church governance, most people are comfortable with a greater role for women in leadership positions. There is no reason or tradition against that and the demands of social justice clearly point the church in that direction, at least in this country. Obviously, again as John Allen points out, even the Vatican is hearing that call. It would not have happened on its own; that is rarely the way with the shifting of power. It happened due to the personal quests of individuals to change the church, often working together. Sometimes loud and raucous or "shrill" voices, often quiet, academic, behavioral rather than verbal, etc. etc. etc. While ordaining women is the radical approach, and totally reprehensible to some readers, from a sociological viewpoint it is part of a proven approach to change. May work, may not, for the final product...but moves the conversation.
One of the reasons I feel more complacent about the situation than some people is that women have acted smartly in moving much of their lives outside the authority of the church, developing their skills and talents in the wider world. A different social and political culture has been developed, where it makes the church's former positions seem strange and unnecessary. In business and public settings now, a homosocial decision making approach seems weird to people, and even former 'good ole boys' will ask where the women are. Some issues, such as appropriate responses by bishops to pedophilia in their clergy, benefit from the stronger voice of women protecting children, for instance. And the men know that increasingly. That all changes the church. Perhaps in two hundred years, but what's a few centuries in the fullness of time? Short of a "Dune"-type world crisis where women would likely step up to spend their time and energies to re-populate the earth, women are not likely to move out of the public sphere again. Perhaps that it is the will of the Spirit for the church as well. I don't really think that any of us know that, do we? (I realize that some of you are sure you know that, but you are in the minority). The jury is out on that one. And, although I know I won't be around to see it, I relish a part in heading there.
"...but there are many who
"...but there are many who are angry at the Church for some reason or tother, who turn that anger into a personal quest to change the Church"
Dear here today ~ Your posting is appreciated. Yes, I for one am angry ~ to some extent ~ with the Church. I was "angry" with my kids when they underachieved and strayed from the values I thought they inherited. I NEVER STOPPED LOVING THEM, would never leave them.
I do not dispute that God opted to conduit his presence in our world through the Catholic Church. Nevertheless I will stay in my confidence that his grace is so much wider in its spread throughout time and space that we should be more humbled in our custodianship rather than retreating into the traditional arrogance of our institutionalism. If the institutional authorities, or their dictates do not agree with this stance, so be it; Christ is still present in each I meet.
"I do have a hard time with
"I do have a hard time with the Anglican Church (and the spinoff(s) thereof) because its founding is absurd)"
I suspect this comment comes from a perception that this split was about "The Divorce." It was about quite a bit more than the divorce. The divorce just became the bone three large dogs fought over. Henry had two major problems exemplified in the divorce case: His percieved need for a male heir, and the very cozy relationship between Spain and Rome. Thomas More certainly understood the Vatican would not take a position in this case which threatened it's relationship with Spain, so he bowed out of the discussion while still Chancellor of England.
The Vatican felt it needed Spanish gold and troops to protect it's state sovereignity every bit as much as Henry felt he needed a son to keep England from dynastic war. Allowing Henry to divorce Catherine of Arragorn was not going to play well in Spain.
What's absurd is when a personal situation is played out on the World's stage, and the results have international consequences for millions of otherwise innocent people.
It's a pretty common occurrence when anyone thinks they rule by Divine Authority. 500 years later, and it's still happening, and the consequences are just as devestating.
Henry the Eighth was in
Henry the Eighth was in rather good standing with Rome, being given the title of Defenderof the Faith for his defense of the Sacraments, the Mass, and the Papcy. St Thomas More resigned when Henry demanded the clergy acknowledge the King of England as "Supreme Head" of the Church. Granting the annullment in a situation in which a dispensation for the marriage was sought through much trouble and expense would be for the Church to contradict herself, very obviously and publically in a time when the Church needed to regain some constancy. (It was an anullment that Henry sought, to have the marriage declared null).
Henry sought whatever
Henry sought whatever solution he could get from the Papacy precisely because he didn't want to be put in a position where he had to chose between his faith and his percieved need to provide a male heir to the throne. He fought this battle for well over 10 years, initially as a supplicant, and finally as a belligerent.
He was so Catholic he even used Thomas More to take on Luther in the street pamphlet battles, while at the same time trying to make his case with the Vatican.
The Church had already contradicted itself by allowing Henry to marry Catherine who was his brother's widow. A dispensation given for state reasons. England needed a male heir.
When that didn't happen and political things had changed vis a vis the Vatican and Spain, the Pope decided not to dispense with the dispensation, again for state reasons. His papal state, not Henry's England. A number of very wonderful people were executed over this issue, not the least Thomas More. However, Thomas was perfectly aware that his head was part of the price for Henry's validating his claim to authority over the Church in England. Henry was not happy it came to this, but if anyone understood Thomas More would not let him off the hook, Henry did. Thomas More was Henry's primary source when Henry wrote "In Defense of the Seven Sacraments." The whole thing is incredibly sad, not absurd.
Thanks, Colkoch. I believe
Thanks, Colkoch. I believe this is a great little synopsis on a very intricate issue by a knowledgeable person.
It is sad, but it remains
It is sad, but it remains absurd, as founding a Christian Church on the ability to not follow Christ (Matthew is pretty clear on Jesus' take on divorce), is absurd. (Which makes one wonder about the rest of Christendom's acceptance of spliting the one flesh.)
What a pity ole Henry VIII
What a pity ole Henry VIII apparently didn't have the clout of a Kennedy, LOL!! The split would have been avoided. But seriously, I would be genuinely interested to know how Rev. Dr. E. McCoy squares Episcopalians' acceptance of divorce with Christ's specific teaching not to put asunder what God has joined together.
Dr. McCoy can more than
Dr. McCoy can more than amply speak for herself. But I will say that I was blessed to attend my nephew's marriage in an Episcopalian church last week. There was no shortage of emphasis on the sacredness and the permanence of the marriage bond.
I really don't know a clergyman of any stripe who isn't worried about marriage. They fret about binding couples who they may perceive as "not there". They counsel couples in troubled marriages. They witness the harms of the broken marriage and family.
And all of us recognize that if you are going to call yourself Catholic or Episcopalian or Methodist or Buddhist there are some things you must do.
But, really, what is the point of calling some church your spiritual home if it abandons you in the worst of times? Where is the solace in a church that, when you talk to your priest of infidelity, domestic violence, STD's from a partner, their best reply is "Pray and hang in there." Or if you say, "I couldn't take it any more and I left. But I have found a true partner now." They say, "You are welcome back just don't receive communion (second class citizenry)."
I would never say these are easy issues. They aren't. But the church is big enough, I believe, to minister to the those with broken, imperfect lives.
What a beautiful answer,
What a beautiful answer, MollyJ. You covered most of the bases I can think of. I just wish so much (from hindsight) people would think of their precious future children and be patient, and trust God in the first place. Love will come, in whatever form! It breaks my heart to see the effect of divorce on children, even decades later, and with the best will in the world, even on the part of both Parents. But sometimes it simply cannot be avoided.
JimH, I can't answer for the
JimH,
I can't answer for the Episcopalians, but if my memory serves me correctly, the Roman Catholic Church did not prohibit divorce for about a thousand years and its refusal to allow divorce now is not based on Christ's teaching but only began at the point the Church decided marriage was a sacrament. If it were based on Christ's teaching, it would have banned divorce right from the beginning.
Does The Church, even today,
Does The Church, even today, forbid divorce? I don't think so. I think The Church says you can only get married once, like you can only be baptized or ordained once. I wonder what it's like to be a priest or a minister who can see a disaster coming after consulting with a couple who want to get married and have to decide to either keep his mouth shut and just let it happen or counsel against the marriage or refuse to witness the marriage?
The key issue that the
The key issue that the Church has is indeed remarriage after divorce, not the divorce itself. But you can be married more than once (widows and widowers are free to marry).
As usual, wrong again. The
As usual, wrong again. The church says only one marriage in force at a time. If a partner dies, then the contract is fulfilled and the surviving partner is free to enter into another contract but remains married once.
And where, pray tell, does
And where, pray tell, does this come from? From my understanding of both the Catechism and Canon Law it would seem that Marriage ends at death. Thus a widow or widower re-marrying will have been married once, and married again.
and not be committing
and not be committing polygamy--as in only one at at time.
Yeah I guess I wasn't as
Yeah I guess I wasn't as clear there as I should have been, thanks for the save!
Try searching for "Early
Try searching for "Early Church Fathers on divorce" on Google. This is one of the top hits, among others. Actually that second one notes that divorce among Christians was universally condemned until 500 AD. You are correct in saying that it comes from when the Church recognized marriage as a sacrament, but your date for that is about a 1000 years late.
Nor would the church have
Nor would the church have invented annulments or dispensations. But on the other hand, anullments serve a real need.
Annulments, imhOpinion, came
Annulments, imhOpinion, came about as a consequence of the Pauline privledge (if one of a non-baptised couple converts and the other cannot live in peace with their spouse as a Christian, there is no sacramental marriage). Annulments serve a need, but in the US they are abused. While it is hard-rending when marriages fail, if they were valid then the bond remains. (In my religous-life focused mind, I wonder if some sort of order or 'fraternity' for women in this situation, (I know there's a different word for an all female group like a fraternity, but I am going to be lazy this time.) come to think of it, for men as well. If not, this does appear to be a need in the Church, perhaps one that has some urgency to it given our society.
Disclaimer: I have friends who have gone through such a situation, in partiuclar one whose wife left him due to (her) mental break of some sort and abandoning the Christian faith, who still considers himself bound. (Although he is not Catholic, the above pseudo-religious life options is where my mind immediately went)
My sister was divorced and
My sister was divorced and remarried and years later got an annulment in the Church. I know the procedure because I had to be a witness to her stae of mind at the time of the first marriage. (One of them.)
I was also offered the opportunity to have an annulment on multiple occasions, but I hate the word. It seemed to me, regardless of how often it was explained "otherwise" to me, that if a marriage, honesty entered into (even if it turned out subsequently one of the parties was not who they represented themselves to be---I'm sure that happens 75% of the time to most couples because no one is perfect) trurns out to be disappointing, and if after much counseling, etc. the couple cannot resolve their differences, and if the marriage is thought to be more harmful than a divorce would be (whether rightly or wrongly) then the Church should just call it what it is, and not say "well one person "became immature so the marriage ceased to become sacramental" (that is what they do). Also, even though they say things like this, how do the children feel if they are issue of a marriage that "no longer is a scarament"? Why not say, "The marriage is dissolved." That would be much easier for children to understand.
The Church, by twisting words around to try to accomodate...whom? The Church? God? The People? legal language? More conservative members? Does no one any favors. For years my children hated the idea they would be part of an "annulled" marriage. regardless of what the "Church" said, they knew what the term "made" them! So I didn't get one. Now I am nearly seventy and they say they don't care. A bit late now. It didn't matter. I'm sure if there had been any serious comittment, we would have crossed that bridege when we came to it, in some fashion or another..
What you are describing
What you are describing seems to be among the abuses of annulments, treating it like "Catholic divorce". Nothing that changes after the marriage should have much weight in an annulment hearing, as it is supposed to judge whether the sacrament was valid in the first place, not if it would be valid if performed today.
shootingstar, I am not sure
shootingstar,
I am not sure where your the last two responses of yours (to my posts) are coming from. If I have struck a nerve, I am sorry. I posted general comments, please do not take them personally. You know that I had no idea what circumstances were here, or your circumstances with leaving the Church. I did not condemn anythin you did, indeed, my comment upholds your case for an annulment (vis a vis, your experiences before marriage).
Chris
Actually, no. I was
Actually, no. I was literally "held as a prisoner" against my wishes in 3 foreign countries from the ages of nineteen to the ages of twenty-two, (age of majority was 21 at the time) despite having scholarship offers at two colleges in the United States and free transportation (offered by the government to all military dependents in Europe on the Military Air Transport Service at the time), but my Father, who had 3 college-aged daughters, (and probably couldn't afford to send all of us to school at the time) and who had received an ambiguous statement from the Commandant of the Marine Corps about "how nice it would be to have the three beautiful ______ Girls in Europe" while he was the Senior Marine Officer there, would not allow me to return to school and complete my education although I had visited the Embassy to inquire about my "rights" as a U.S. Citizen. (I was told I "had none" until I was 21, and by then I had been tricked into signing an extension of my time on a work contract.)
A high achiever, I worked hard; there was no reason for my family to think I would be irresponsible while away from home. (I had already been successfully away from home for my senior year of high school and a year and a half of college.) My Family was (to put it mildly) dysfunctional in the extreme, with functional alcoholism and lots of yelling and screaming. I needed to finish college at the time. I wanted to be a teacher and start working and earning my own way. (Actually, since the age of 16 I had always worked, at every vacation, including Christmas and summer.) Europe was beautiful, but not with my unkind, argumentative, Family. I could not work in Europe at the time without a work permit (I tried to find jobs just to keep busy.)
My passport was locked up in my Dad's safe. I did not even have any pocket money so I could leave the apartment we were renting in Paris. "Running away" was out of the question because one could not travel in Europe without a passport or identity cards. In Germany briefly I had my passport, but then no money to catch a plane to the States. I was so desperate to get back to school, but over and over my Parents refused, despite the fact that the President of my prior school had offered me a scholarship, and a priest at another school had found me room and board with a family. I volunteered at the Paris Review for awhile but people there barely spoke to me; they had their own clique. Finally I went to Madrid to study, but my Dad signed me up for an $80 course where the conditions were so horrible I can barely write about them here. (Lots of diahhrea and dysentery all over the place as people who were not acclimated got used to the food, water, or whatever. The "facilities" at that time, were beautiful and modern, but the plumbing was new, and did not work. It was pretty awful. One could not use them, way back in the day--certainly not the way it must be now---without getting sick---so I couldn't go way across town without feeling sick---I have never written about this before.) My Dad had stuck me in a convent in a distant part of Town "to protect me" (near some friends) where, ubbeknownst to him, men placed their mistresses, and other students lived, as well as some mysterious women whose origins I could never figure out. The nuns were very nice, though, but they, it turned out, really wanted to monitor and regulate my life. I was an American girl of twenty, a college student.
Sadly for $400 more, he could have placed me in the Smith College (I think that was it--some Ivy League--Junior Year Abroad program, which would have taken me, and given me a place to live at the same time.) But he decided to go the "Catholic" route---a disaster.
(By the end of Christmas vaction I was out, partly because the nuns didn't like the way I put ketchup all over their bland madrilenlo food (and some of the South American girls were starting to spice up the food as well.) Then I had to find a room where the drunken husband of the family would often try to "let himself in" at night, "by mistake", of course! It was very scary, but nonetheless, I kept myself safe. Oh how I longed for that slightly more expensive American Program where I would be able to get credit and have a little more safety and structure!)
An American Naval Officer lived across the street with his wife and two little boys. The wife and the little boys seemed to like my company, so I would babysit for the boys, and go visit with the wife, and drink some sherry with her. (She introduced me to Pedro Domec.) I met a nice young Spanish man at the University (who much later became a Cabinet member). That was the highlight of my time in Europe. I returned to Paris, and started to study shorthand so I could work in Madrid for the Air Force. But my Father got me a job in Paris without my knowledge. (I thought I was offered the job.) As I signed up (it paid well enough so I could get a nice, small apartment and out of my crazy household where my parents screamed at each other outside the maid's room where I was holed up.) I found out I had to sign a two-year contact. What could I do at that point? The Government had spent months investigating me to be sure I wasn't a "security risk" and I (by then) felt obligated to take the job. I was young, and very easily manipulated, at that age.
So soon I was trapped in a job where, I soon discovered, the people resented me because it was a job my Father had obtained for me, with even more of an obligation to remain in Europe. At least I didn't have to remain at home. My passport, though, was still in my Father's safe, even though I was over 21. I felt like a slave. meanwhile, while waiting for the clearance, I had met a young officer in the Marine Corps and he wanted to marry me. I did feel I was in love with him. He was a Catholic college graduate, so after almost a year of ups and downs, I agreed.
He wanted to wait until January to marry in his hometown, but I knew I would never be allowed to go home to get married, so I talked him into getting married in November before he left Europe. We had a huge wedding in Paris. (All my Parents wanted to do was to marry us off.) Something that occurred over the Atlantic flying home gave me the sinking feeling that I had married him for all the wrong reasons (to finally get home) and I knew right then that I could get an annulment. But I was not a dishonest type, and I made up my mind that I would make this marriage work, although by then I knew I didn't love him. It turned out he didn't love me, either.
Like so many, he thought Generals were "rich", and so would Generals' daughters' be. I hadn't set out to deceive him, (in fact, over the time of courtship I had told him we were NOT that well-off) but we both thought my Parents would be more involved. However, they conceived another child of their own about the same time we started their family, and surprised us by being singularly uninvolved as Parents/Grandparents. This was completely at odds with his "culture" and left me as rather an "orphan" in the eyes of his Family and their friends and embarrassed my husband. He seemed very disappointed in the fact that I had very little, except a nice trousseau and a decent education, and good skills at meeting people and figuring out office politics and strategies, editing his papers, and a desire for more education.
This did not provide the foundation for a good marriage. Although we had "courted by mail and visits" for more than a year, (in my "service culture" this was common) later I figured out that we had spent a total of 21 days in each other's company. Culturally, we could not have been more different. The Marine Corps Life does not give people an awareness of "cultural differences".
I was an adult before I realized that a general Officer whose little boy had been born when I was , had an Italian name! (Unlike East Coast cities--ethnicity was just "blind", for some reason where I grew up, except for being Irish, which we were, in Catholic schools, or studying the contributions of diffiferent ethnic groups to American history. But my Parents, thank God, were fairly notable, at least on the surface, for their lack of prejudice, so moving near to a large East Coast industrial city was "culture shock" to me. I won't bore you with the deeper aspects of that now. Soon I'll maybe write a book about all this. It obviously bubbling close to the surface.)
But before you "judge" people's efforts to try to make a marriage, Here Today, My Friend, in TWO sentences (so typical and thank God that is not what the Church does) realize I could have gotten an annulment under the OLD rules of the Church, not the NEW rules. MY "ex" has since been married twice again, not that that's relevant.
I really don't give a damn about your judgments, anyway. I do care that this man, my husband, and I worked fourteen long years to try to make a marriage and a family out of practically nothing. A lot of love, wishes and dreams from many people went into that effort, as imperfect as it was, and it brought us four wonderful children, conceived in love. The entire thing was a tragedy, for which I blame mostly myself, but seven other people (including my husband's wonderful parents, who did all they could to help us, and were amazing grandparents to my children) had to suffer.
All I wanted was a happy family, and cherished companionship, but I received something else. Still what I received was a very rich life, and I am not sure I would exchange it for another one.
If it pleases you, I would
If it pleases you, I would be interested in your reflections on Andrew Greeley's recent column in the Chicago Sun-Times regarding promotion of the Military Draft being sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel of New York.
In particular, Greeley highlights the posture of Liberal Authoritarians and the coopting of the freedoms of the young. He also addresses the popular notion that military brutality can, ' make a man out of you '. With that, he asks if it can also , ' make a woman out of your daughter '.
The links can be made through agreeley.com . His new book about Conservative Christians is well reviewed there also, which should be balm to some of our more anxious contributors.
We Must Not Confuse What Is Essential In The Church With That Which Is Mutable, No Matter How Ancient It May Be
I frequently respond to
I frequently respond to Andrew Greeley (or perhaps I respond to one of his assistants?) but I have corresponded directly with him on a few rare occasions. As you know, he is quite the military historian himself, and retains a keen interest in WWII. That is why he can write with such authoity on these matters.
You are quite welcome, and have my permission, to copy my column for Father Greeley and forward to him if you like. Just tell him it is from Tim's Mother and Nicole's Grandmother in Colorado.
As for his column, thanks for again reminding me (I usually copy it and forward it to my sister in Florida. We are both big fans.) He has hit the nail on the head, to my relief. Nicole was not for the draft; I was not for the draft, because of my sweet Nicole, but I felt guilty.
However, L2L, you made an excellent point, yourself! I had never equated the "lost" years of my life, that "loss of freedom" as a kind of "draft", yet it was, thanks to those two Generals, the Commandant (poor fellow with his unintended compliment, which my Father did not know how to "take") and my Father, who thought he was giving us
Jaime Ohevin: You wrote to
Jaime
Ohevin:
You wrote to Dennis: "...There are other voices that have opinons, however what Our Blessed Lord teaches via His Magisterium is not opinion...but TRUTH. I accept this TRUTH-you don't" Ummmmmmmm.
Your declartion sets you far above my mere mortal stature, as I continue to search for the TRUTH. There are few truths I can be assured of. Most of them are through my faith. One is that GOD IS. But I can't even postulate anything further about God without talking analogously (humanly), and therefore errantly or at least incompletely about His infinite Being.
Another truth I believe in is that Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God Present in this world. But I don't know how it all works. (For example if Grace is the presence of Christ in me(i.e Sanctifying grace) imparted to me indelibly via the sacraments;and my immortal soul is the spiritual recipient of that grace; can I be sure that my "male" soul is different from a "female" soul? And that I as a male-(not mail)man I can receive all seven sacraments (graces) but my wife and four daughters can only receive six???If that can be answered, then we assume that we know exactly how God works and how he made our souls. And we have an insight into nature of men an women and have to wonder what "made in the image and likeness of God means" Oh Hum.....
Another place where I seem not to know HOW God works is in the mystery (read TRUTH) of the incarnation (even the Magisterium is not privy to this). The Magisterium teaches it , and I believe in Christ's physical Presence in the Transubstantiated bread and wine, and I believe in his Presence in his Mystical Body as taught to us by Paul. When I communicate with Christ in the Eucharist, (I no longer GO to communion, IAM in communion) by receiveing his Body and become part of Him I have the temerity to believe that I not only receive his physical body, but that I need also to receive his body wholly, that is: I need to receive the whole body of Christ mystically present in all of us. Some of those pesky members are not all perfect.(It's not just his "soma" but his "sarx" that I admit into ourselves) Yes I believe that I've gotta receive those poor "deluded souls" that are made in the image and likeness of God who are sincere (TRUTH) in their ways but don't believe in the Magisterium Jews, Muslims, Aborigines, Pre-New Testament Peoples, Aborigines.
And by so receiving Eucharist I think (believe) that am following John's Gospel which enjoins me not just to talk about loving God, because if I do the talk and don't do the walk, I can be called a liar in TRUTH.
I believe, "de fide Catolica" whatever the Church has formally declared "Ex Catedra" and as dogmatically certain. There are only a handful (last time I counted, about seven) of these TRUTHS. Meanwhile thousands, (OVER MANY YEARS) of honest,pious,learned,theologians AND LAYFOLKS have written millions of words about these TRUTHS (and probably have even expressed many opinions).
Lastly, the Proclamation-Instrument Pope John Paul II used to proclaim that "definitely" women could not be ordained, was not an "Ex Cathedratic" statement. Maybe somebody smarter then me can technically and theologically/canonically sort out the difference. But I think its going to come down to "definitely" only not now. (See my reference to spiritual male vs female souls as recipients of grace.)
I'm just bringing-up all of the above, to illustrate that its not easy to be "Categorically, Metaphysicaly, Certain" about where and what the TRUTH really is. Pilot asked Jesus what the TRUTH was and never waited for an answer and never got one.
Keep searching dear friend, you too will be blessed in your search to get to the TRUTH about ohevin.