America reports on the words of apology of a priest in Illinois for the insensitive words toward women from Vatican officials. The priest saw too many women walking away from the Catholic Church and felt he had to do something. The local paper reports on it here.
Priest apologizes for Vatican
Comments
60 responses to “Priest apologizes for Vatican”
-
Wow. Sure is refreshing to see some honesty and courage to speak the truth here. I know about this parish and the wonderful ministry done there… this is an example of pastoral care that all too rare these days.
-
Wow is right. Rather than say, “hey, yeah, I know that the Vatican needs a PR person, but their principles are still sound– I’m sorry for the offense,” he simply wrote off the Curia as a bunch of insensitive and misguided prats.
The real question is: Was what was released regarding pedophilia and women’s ordination wrong? Did they err in their issuance of the list of grave offenses?
What a travesty in our day and age that we are giving so much press time to people who openly dissent against Holy Mother Church.
Perhaps, as a gesture of objectivity, America should post Fr. Z’s apology:
“After reading this, I just felt compelled to say something. I apologize to all Catholics of good will everywhere for the insensitivity of this pastor in Oak Park, IL. His harsh words wound us all. I am sincerely sorry for the public damage he has done to the Church’s good reputation.”
-
And how does he sensitively and pastorally uphold Church teaching that the Church has no power to ordain women?
-
Or he could have explained why this teaching is important/necessary. He could have used the opportunity to teach.
-
Mr. Finn,
I don’t have any trouble imagining that the pastor’s judgment was that this moment was NOT a good one for trying to teach. Timing sometimes IS everything.
-
+JMJ+
Here is Fr. McNally’s August 10 letter to the editor of the Sun-Times.
I regret that the two issues (women’s ordination and pedophilia) were mentioned in the context of a single statement, because of the great and widespread misunderstanding that the Church somehow equates the two. People jump to conclusions and the whole things end up being a matter of P.R. and outrage, and few actually weed out the noise and get to the heart of the matter.
I share Fr. McNally’s outrage at the inaction concerning the likes of Cardinal Law. I am rather baffled that the result of the visitation to women’s religious orders won’t be shared with those orders!
I don’t think the price-tag for the visitation comes anywhere near that of providing for the retirement needs of elderly religious, though. That’s akin to the “Vatican should sell its artwork to feed the poor” argument… we’d have to find really inexpensive food, or else feed a small percentage of the poor, or else give the poor very little food indeed. But that’s another topic for another thread.
-
What is it exactly that would give someone the idea that they can apologize for the Church? Is this an “I am the Church” kind of thing? I cannot even imagine presuming that he would be disposed to apologize for anything on behalf of everyone in his own parish let alone the whole Church. In essence, his apology is meaningless (not backed up by the authority to issue such an apology) and so is even more of an insult to those he is pretending to help. Perhaps one of his parishioners can hear his confession and offer him “absolution”.
-
I wonder if the women in his parish received it as an insult, as you think it is. I doubt it!
awr-
I seriously doubt that they saw it as an insult. But then again, that may be the real issue here.
-
-
-
[Comment removed by author, but it was about apologizing for the Church Institutional as opposed to for the Church Pastoral]
-
I wonder how many who read the priest’s apology even knew about the original document?
-
“Church institutional” vs “Church pastoral” ?
Whatever happened to “one, holy, apostolic Church” ?
-
So – within the Catholic Church – some would argue that it should be OK to ape the sacraments and somehow *not* be a major issue? Why should I – a layman- not purport to celebrate the Mass in that case?
How about if I say I feel the Spirit (funny, no one ever says the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost in this context but I assume – I hope – that’s what is meant) moving me to do it? Does that make it OK? Can I claim I am being “prophetic”? “Pastoral”?
Would it be an insult to lay people everywhere for the Church to take action against me in such a scenario insofar as I am a member of it? If not, why should Catholic women who follow Church teaching be insulted by action being taken against those who unlawfully purport to receive the sacrament of holy orders?
What on earth is the difference between those two examples?
-
Because, if you are male, you COULD be a priest if there weren’t impediments to your being one. I can’t be a priest because I’m married (among other reasons!), and I’ll just have to get over it. But if there WEREN’T reasons why I can’t be a Priest, I most certainly COULD BE one… understand??
-
How very daft of you to not see the difference!
-
Yes, Jeffrey, he ~could~ be lawfully ordained a priest. But he hasn’t been.
The point he was making is that his deciding that “the Spirit” is moving him to make himself a priest is exactly what the womenpriest movement is doing. Under no direction from those who have authority to ordain and install him, he would be assuming a role that he has no authority to assume, nevermind the ontological change of the person through ordination.
So, in fact, it is a great example of how a man could try to do the same thing that some women are doing, and whom the law is directed towards.
How very daft of you not to see the difference.
-
-
Sure we all know I’m daft – I only have the CCC and a rudimentary Jesuit education to go by.
-
Humility seeks not so serve on its own terms. Women can serve and have served mightily in the Church. How foolish to talk of women saints as less than because they were not priests!
If one wants powersharing, that’s not the same as service and authentic vocation.
And I find it rather pointless to talk of an “institutional” Church. Are we not
all one Body? It’s almost amusing when such labels come from the ordained and/ or folks that make their living through the Church. How can we lowly faithful be expected to work and thrive under the authority of our pastors and lay leaders if they in turn dispute the (legitimate) authority of those above them? This approach weakens both credibility and community. -
Mary Ann,
Thanks for your words above. What happens to some Church professionals that so many have adopted a hermeneutic of suspicion toward almost everything in the Church from traditional theology to magisterial pronouncements, from traditional liturgical forms to their fellow travelers who cherish these forms? It must be more than familiarity because many have not been near a traditional (EF) liturgy in decades (if ever) yet their suspicion of it is palatable. The same people who value a native American dream catcher are offended by a maniple.
-
“What happens to some Church professionals that so many have adopted a hermeneutic of suspicion toward almost everything in the Church… ?”
I’m reminded of that Mark Twain quote, “Familiarity breeds contempt–and children.” Many folks who work for the Church come to see what is negative more often and more up-close than those who are not Church professionals. That could be part of it.
But to spin the second part of Twain’s clever quip, familiarity also breeds children: fruits of a close, personal relationship with Jesus, encountered through the sacraments and liturgy of the Church.
I guess it can go both ways. -
In any hierarchical organization there are those who feel they are smarter and purer in intent than those who above them in the hierarchy. What invariably happens is that when that person does rise in the organization, he/she encounters the challenges that prevented what he/she thought SHOULD be done. Some do find creative ways to make a difference but these are exceptions and often the changes are made at great personal and professional sacrifice. Priests and even bishops have the right to carp about the Roman curia. It’s a great way to blow off steam, but I am pretty sure that issues that seem very clear cut (send Cdl. Law to prison or stop mucking with the English translation) are so much more complicated than we can ever imagine.
-
Who said he should go to prison? I think many would have settled for removing him from the congregation that appoints bishops, some would add from the college of cardinals.
Also, most critics of the new translation I know don’t say “stop mucking with” the current one, but improve it – eg with the 1998 proposal.
You’re overstating your position and misstating what other people say.
awr
-
-
Hence the way lieutenants and captains grouse about majors and generals – until they are promoted! But what’s fine in the officers’ mess over a beer can look very different frozen in time forever on the internet…
-
Wow, lots of nervous anxiety from some folks when the corruption in our hierarchy is critiqued! OK, so it can’t be changed, any insider knows that – everyone should accept that, and above all, stop the criticism.
Someone should have told St. Catherine of Sienna that – everyone knows the papacy will stay in Avignon and that can’t be changed either.
awr
-
“Someone should have told St. Catherine of Sienna …”
Or Mother Angelica, a more contemporary example of the faithful giving the hierarchy constructive criticism.
-
Constructive?? Hello???
awr
-
-
-
Somehow I don’t think St. Catherine was quite so sarcastic…
-
Maybe not sarcastic, but she did at one point tell the Pope, “Act like a man!”
-
In other words, she said, “Be the father of the universal Church, and stop kowtowing to national interests.”
-
Yup – she spoke to the issues and problems of her day. Which of course are different than our issues today. (We don’t have a French monarchy holding the Pope captive. Although some would say that perhaps he is captive to another sort of monarchical thinking…)
awr -
We have a rich, progressive West, self-confident in its alleged theological sophistication, trying to hold the Pope captive to ephemeral ideas–the Avignon of our time.
-
I’m not sure how wide the swathe of your insult is, but I *think* you’re saying that progressive theological ideas are unsophisticated and ephemeral. All of them? Or just most of them? Or do you want to tell us which ones and maybe we can flag them in the commbox!?
awr -
I mean that the narrowly feminist position taken by this blog post is a cause du jour. In contrast, there is a vibrant feminism actually being lived by many persons who do not accept that position. Theirs is the incarnational feminism that I believe will have a lasting positive meaning within the Church.
-
-
-
I agree, Fr. Anthony, the hierarchy should be able to be critiqued.
However, I think that what the priest did here, not dissimilar from the situation in the Nashville Diocese, is the very definition of scandal.
The media (old or new forms) isn’t a forum for solving real problems such as the ones being currently addressed in it. It’s a forum for saying “I’m going to go take my ball and play elsewhere… come with me.” Most of what is said I would wager is never heard by anyone who can make real changes about these things.
Just my two cents.
-
Chris, you make good points. I suspect priests like this, use public forums (media) which don’t solve the real problems because they feel there is no forum in which to be heard. We don’t have, eg. house of laity and house of clergy with real legislative authority.
awr
-
-
Fr. Ruff, I have heard enough priests calling for Cardinal Law to pay for protecting those he did in the secular system and I’ve heard you on several occasions calling for Rome to stop messing with the translation that was sent to them by the American bishops, so I don’t think I am overstating the case. It doesn’t really matter, since that was not my point. I was simply trying to say that grousing about what happens up the chain of command is quite normal, but it’s so often the case that the real issues are not quite so simple. Ceile is exactly right, though. The comments that usually stayed in the rectory are now out there for the laity and presumably the hierarchy to read.
-
Agreed, Kathy. I might add that I don’t think St. Catherine would be bellyaching that she couldn’t be ordained… She proved quite a force in her vocation.
Let us exalt the distinct roles of women, and be comfortable in them. And, by the grace of God, we will all be amazed at what women can do!-
Perhaps. But women’s ordination wasn’t a big issue in her time like it is today, so we really have no idea what she would say about it if she were alive today.
awr-
If any one of the great woman saints saw an all-male priesthood as a problem of great injustice, we can trust they would have tackled it, as they did racial injustice, treatment of women, poverty, child abuse, prostitution, education of women, etc., throughout the ages.
Consider in our own time that Teresa Benedicta and Teresa of Calcutta led lives of great purpose, and didn’t find an all-male priesthood problematic.
Why?
The push for women priests arises only with, and is bound up with, the distortion of feminism in the latter half of the previous century. This is the feminism that rightly acknowledges equality between the sexes, yet refuses to value the distinct and complementary roles of man and woman. -
Mary Ann argued that if any women saints thought the ordination of women was unjust they would have tackled it. This is a red herring. Women saints have no uniform track record for denouncing any and all injustices in their own times, not to mention those practices that are seen differently today because of advances in the understanding of biology, changes in sensibility about sex roles, etc. A number of practices have been judged unjust or unacceptable in the course of the Church’s history that were once well accepted in former ages, such as slavery and forced marriage and the prohibition against usury not to mention persecution of the Jews, the tactics of the Inquisition, torture, burning heretics at the stake and so forth, without any women saints having “tackled” them. So why we should imagine they would single out ordination is unclear.
-
Furthermore, naming women of the twentieth century who are praised for their sanctity yet who have not challenged the all-male priesthood is a completely circular argument. Of course any woman who stands up for women’s ordination, however saintly, will not be promoted, recognized or canonized by the hierarchy today, because those who confer canonization and promote the causes of the saints claim is that such a position is opposed to the will of Christ. A generation (or two or three) from now, the Church may very well have a whole list of women saints—and men saints—who advocated ordination, but we will only know this if and when the ban on their position is lifted.
-
-
Mary Ann,
You set an excellent example in that regard 🙂
-
-
Thanks Mary for those very beautiful inputs.
By the way, St Catherine also called the Pope “sweet Christ on earth”. If Fr McNally also refer to the Pope in that way, then what he said would have been truly pastoral.
-
You know, I am grateful to Fr Ruff – unlike many other critics of the proposed translation, he is quite intellectually consistent.
It isn’t just about translation ‘per se’ – it’s about a vision of the Catholic Church and the role of its priesthood. He clearly (albeit not quiiite explicitly) is in favor of women priests. My opposition to the concept is based not on any personal objection but on consistent authoritative Church teaching and my understanding that, even if there is a slight chance that such ordinations are invalid, such that the Eucharist would be invalid, it is a chance we cannot take.
But he has made clear on this site he is not overly concerned with validity in the Eucharist. Again, consistent. The new language is designed to focus on the validity of the Eucharist. What led to my estrangement from the Church until Summorum Pontificum was some perhaps less than totally intellectually honest priests arguing that trying to abolish, oh, for example, sanctus bells, kneeling for the consecration, kneeling for Communion on the tongue, a centrally placed Tabernacle, and genuflection before it had absolutely nothing to do with an attempt on their part to try to change our views on and understanding of the Eucharist. Apparently good arguments can indeed be made: oh, we can see what’s happening on the Altar now, oh, some Christians in Ethiopia or somewhere did it that way in 300 AD, etc. so it’s OK, etc etc but still….. those are only the real arguments if they did also not have more important other reasons they did not share (think sins of omission rather than commission).
(I felt like they were telling me “who are you going to believe, me or your own two eyes?”, as Groucho Marx put it and reacted accordingly. Had they told me it was because they wanted to move away from Transubstantiation, I would not have agreed but would at least have respected them.)
I do not agree with Fr Ruff on these fundamental matters – nowhere near it. But I do understand and appreciate his consistency – his opposition to the new translation cannot, I think, be separated from his belief in an understanding of the priesthood much closer to that of Protestant ministers than to the traditional Catholic and Orthodox one. If there is no overriding concern with validity in the Eucharist, there really cannot be any lasting objection to women priests: I accept that.
But let’s be clear – the argument on the translations cannot be divorced from this bigger argument.
The proposed translation is, in my uneducated layman’s view, part of a wider policy in the Hierarchy to make clearer again the sacrificial nature of the Mass and to bolster traditional Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation as the best explanation of the Real Presence.
If that traditional teaching is kept, the reality is that we’ll never have women priests or unity with the ever more rapidly mutating Anglicans etc – if on the other hand it can be undermined, or redefined, or massaged etc, we have no reason not to.
But in the debate, we should all be aware of the wider agenda – this may be somewhat about, but it is not all about, process and grammar and easy to understand words- it’s part of a much bigger campaign for both sides.
I think that’s the debate we need to have. It’d be easier to follow and more honest if everyone showed their hands fully.
-
Pretty harsh words, Ceile.
I have followed the discussion on validity pretty closely, and have not read anything from Fr Anthony that denies the importance of “validity.” What he has said is that the self-emptying of Christ in the Eucharist is more important than validity.
Beyond that misstatement, I would agree that there are some who do not want to be challenged by the Eucharist. They are content to receive the eucharistic body of Christ, but pay little attention to the Soul and Divinity of Christ that are present with the Body. But there are people on both sides of the translation debate recognize the Soul of Christ in the Eucharist, and everyone who cares enough about the Eucharist to argue about it recognize Divinity’s presence.
Fr Anthony’s gentle evocation of the soul of Christ with the words “self-emptying” is a fuller affirmation of Christ’s presence than we usually get by using terms like :transubstantiation or validity. It reflects very well the agenda of the Church, that all would receive the Love God has poured out for us in Christ.
-
Ceile, you have attributed a whole series of beliefs to me which I do not hold and have never stated here. I’m debating whether to delete your comment or just spam you permanently. I’m thiniking about it for now.
awr-
Of course if you either delete it or ban him, this will simply confirm him in his view that he has “outed” you are the heretic you are. I’d be inclined to just let the accusation hang out there and trust that people will see it for the nonsense it is.
-
I think I have been misunderstood and clearly I have misunderstood. I actually think it is a valid and valuable debate to have (I don’t pretend to have the answers – the debate on other posts as to what exactly does happen during an “inavalid” Eucharist got me thinking and challenged me). I don’t think anyone is a heretic here. However, I leave it to you decide to whether to delete my post or to ban me. It is your blog after all. I was trying to look at things at a different angle from my own comfort zone. The result is that I have misquoted/misinterpreted others for which I apologise (something which I have had to do repeatedly here recently and which leads me to conclude that a period of silence, instigated by myself or Fr Ruff, might be no bad thing). A blog is a difficult thing to express oneself on – it calls for skills other than those in a conversation where tone is clearer and misunderstandings more quickly resolved. A final point: whatever else I was being, I was not being at all sarcastic. OK, enough from me.
-
-
I too think Anthony has been pretty consistent. But what he has been consistent about is faulting the new translation for:
1) their ugliness
2) their lack of fidelity to the Latin original
3) the process by which they were accomplishedNothing at all about women priests or transubstantiation.
And, btw, it would be interesting to see some comparison of the old and new translations which demonstrated the claim that the new reinforces the doctrine of transubstantiation more than the old.
-
-
This calls for pastoral sensitivity. Ceile’s words don’t appear to be too harsh when compared to some of the things that have been said here by other posters or linked by our editors-, for example, Ceile is quite calm when compared to Robert B. Kaiser;s talk in Ireland yet Kaiser’s talk was gently described by our editor as “not moderate/balanced”.
Fr. Ruff, perhaps it would be pastoral to articulate your recognition that a female priesthood is something the Church has no authority to do? Why-1). because the people need to hear this from their priests once in awhile, think of it as an act of pastoral charity, 2). because we are long past the age where being in the clerical state is enough to presume assent to the ordinary magisterium, 3) because Lumen gentium #25 seems less popular here than SC #36.
On validity, priests do not always appear to be sensitive to the predicament of the laity who depend upon them for a valid Eucharist. Priests who are scandalized by the lack of an “art of celebration” of another priest can say their own Mass. Today’s laity have to endure every type of progressive priest who routinely changes the words of consecration or absolution and sometimes the laity have no recourse to another parish due to age, infirmity, or rural residency. Cloistered or infirm religious are similarly ill served at times. It is important to understand how important validity is to the laity and how sensitive many are to it. I am not surprised to see a reaction.
-
This complementarity stuff is cr*p…excuse the language…complementarity does NOT depend on gender…it is personality which determines complementarity…hence, working relationships…friendships…marraige/same-sex unions.
To limit complementarity to gender/sex-organs is to, once again, put God into a box of OUR making and to limit God to making us as some want to see us…i.e., limited by/to gender.
Complementarity-in-the-box is very useful to keep people in their place, especially women.
Men need to walk in women’s moccasins for many moons and many miles to see just what it’s like to be on the “other side”…so do those women who meekly just accept being assigned a gender role.
-
I’m puzzled by this term “complementarity”… Do we have a working definition to go by?
-
Not crap at all. And there’s Plenty of women who don’t demonstrate much meekness and don’t care a whit to see women ordained.
I’m not joining this ’cause du jour’, as Kathy put it, based on my own observations.
1) I think it’s based on a perceived power struggle, not the desire to serve.
2) If this movement had any real merit, you’d see better fruits. As it stands, religious who agitate for this have pathetically dwindling vocations. Religious who embrace the role of motherhood in a community setting are growing.
3) People seriously pushing this tend to be down on motherhood (which is an immensely difficult and important job), crabby, insolent, and centered on the ’cause’ while real serious injustices go unmentioned.No thanks. I’ll take the model of Mother Teresa and Edith Stein over angry feminists any day.
-
I guess Mary Ann’s experience really is limited to the sort of people she describes here, and that’s very unfortunate. The women I know who are advocating women’s ordination (to call it “pushing” a “cause du jour” is incredibly insulting and belittling) are productive, dedicated, service-oriented, joyful, and wise. Such being the case, it saddens me to see such a dismissive response. But to link advocacy of women’s ordination with opposition to motherhood is just a libel. There is not a shred of evidence to support such a claim. One may argue the merits of the case for ordination of women based on tradition, or a reading of scripture, or on a version of theological anthropology, but not based on some sort of supposed moral inferiority of the people who advocate this.
-
I believe most of the female Catholic priests ARE mothers…and by the way, feminism is not opposition to men or motherhood, but calls for equality for ALL people…men as well as women!!
I am in a training class (not for ordination…) which includes several women ordained ministers from many different denominations…all are married, all are mothers.
Do you have any idea what it’s like to produce perfectly good homilies and not be able to ever deliver said homily simply because one has a uterus? Really…think about that & just how very silly it is!!
-
Lynne, I don’t think there are any female Catholic priests because the Church has no authority to ordain women (OS), there are women who simulate the sacraments, however.
Rita, I don’t understand why anyone would advocate for women’s ordination among R. Catholics because we know what OS teaches but it is bizarre to me that the issue is discussed in an apparent vacuum that ignores the ramifications it would bring to our people. The reluctance to discuss the disaster such an attempt would foist on the Church leads me to wonder where the love for the Church is found among advocates for WO. The schisms (both among the Latins but also with the Eastern rite Catholics who would be pushed back to E. Orthodoxy would be awful, the injustice WO would foist on the Catholic people: priests, bishops, laity (including religious), who could never recognize the sacraments women identifying as priests (sic) attempt to perform. We know this pastoral disaster, property disputes, and division would be the result because we know our own tradition and because we already witness it among the Anglicans & TEC. No one who advances the idea of WO should avoid this discussion. They only explanation I perceive for their neglecting any serious discussion of the negative pastoral result of WO must be their awareness that it will never happen.
-
-
Common sense collides with womens’ studies courses, yet again…
People ARE different based on their sex. Different and equal as children of God.The roles of mother and father are more than a social construct. They are Relationships that mean a huge to kids and adults, and parents.
Men can’t love as mothers and women can’t love as fathers, for example.
It’s frankly bizarro to have to spell out something so basic to human experience.
-
Basic to whose experience??
-
-
-
For some reason there is no reply button for Rita’s posts, so I’ll do that here.
Well, that’s why I said ‘tend to be’ rather than ‘are all’. There are other, more thoughtful women, as you say. There’s also plenty of evidence that some folks put down traditional roles- including motherhood- while advocating womens ord. Consider a comment above about meek women. Last I heard meekness was a fruit of the Holy Spirit, not a trait anyone should be denigrated for.
And, lest either-or thinking should surface, just because I cite my own observations doesn’t mean I’m not aware of the arguments from Scripture and theology. Alice Von Hildebrand has written beautifully and forcefully using such arguments.
And I can’t agree that citing great women from history is a red herring when it comes to this debate. I admire my sisters of all eras of Christian tradition too much to think that they would all be negligent in a so-called just cause. Circular argument about contemporary saintly women- I see your point on that. But the historical record does matter, and we just don’t see any movement of holy women calling for ordination.It is also convincing to me that Jesus didn’t have female apostles, and yet held women in very high regard and loved them no less than men. The Church has been pretty clear in recent years that she doesn’t have the authority to change an all-male priesthood. So for me it’s a moot point, afterall. I’ll work and pray for other things.
-
Ever hear of Mary Magdalene, the Disciple of disciples??
-
by
Please leave a reply.