Letter of Fr. Bourgeois to his order

Rev. Edward Dougherty, M.M., Superior General 
Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers 
P.O. Box 303 Maryknoll, NY 10545

April 8, 2011

Dear Father Dougherty and General Council,

Maryknoll has been my community, my family, for 44 years, so it is with great sadness that I received your letter of March 18, 2011 stating I must recant my belief and public statements that support the ordination of women, or I will be dismissed from Maryknoll.

When I was a young man in the military, I felt God was calling me to be a priest. I later entered Maryknoll and was ordained. I am grateful for finding the happiness, meaning and hope I was seeking in life.

For the past 20 years I have been speaking out and organizing against the injustice of the School of the Americas and U.S. foreign policy in Latin America. Over these years I discovered an injustice much closer to home – an injustice in my Church.

Devout women in our Church believe God is calling them to be priests, but they are rejected because the Church teaches that only baptized men can become priests. As a Catholic priest for 38 years, I believe our Church’s teaching that excludes women from the priesthood defies both faith and reason and cannot stand up to scrutiny for the following reasons:

(1) As Catholics, we believe that we were created in the image and likeness of God and that men and women are equal before God. Excluding women from the priesthood implies that men are superior to women.

(2) Catholic priests say that the call to be a priest is a gift and comes fromGod. How can we, as men, say: “Our call from God is authentic, but your call, as women, is not”? Who are we to reject God’s call of women to the priesthood? I believe our Creator who is the Source of life and called forth the sun and stars is certainly capable of calling women to be priests.

(3) We are told that women cannot be priests because Jesus chose only men as apostles. As we know, Jesus did not ordain anyone. Jesus also chose a woman, Mary Magdalene, to be the first witness to His resurrection, which is at the core of our faith. Mary Magdalene became known as “the apostle to the apostles.”

(4) A 1976 report by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the Vatican’s top Scripture scholars, concluded that there is no valid case to be made against the ordination of women from the Scriptures. In the Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian and other Christian churches, God’s call of women to the priesthood is affirmed and women are ordained. Why not in the Catholic church?

(5) The Holy Scriptures remind us in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither male nor female. In Christ Jesus you are one.” Furthermore, the Second Vatican Council’s Pastoral Constitution on The Church in the Modern World states: “Every type of discrimination … based on sex. .. is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent.”

After much reflection and many conversations with fellow priests and women, I believe sexism is at the root of excluding women from the priesthood. Sexism, like racism, is a sin. And no matter how hard we may try to justify discrimination against women, in the end, it is not the way of God. Sexism is about power. In the culture of clericalism many Catholic priests see the ordination of women as a threat to their power.

Our Church is in a crisis today because of the sexual abuse scandal and the closing of hundreds of churches because of a shortage of priests. When I entered Maryknoll we had over 300 seminarians. Today we have ten. For years we have been praying for more vocations to the priesthood. Our prayers have been answered. God is sending us women priests. Half the population are women. If we are to have a vibrant and healthy Church, we need the wisdom, experience and voices of women in the priesthood.

As Catholics, we believe in the primacy and sacredness of conscience. Our conscience is sacred because it gives us a sense of right and wrong and urges us to do the right thing. Conscience is what compelled Franz Jagerstatter, a humble Austrian farmer, husband and father of four young children, to refuse to join Hitler’s army, which led to his execution. Conscience is what compelled Rosa Parks to say she could no longer sit in the back of the bus. Conscience is what compels women in our Church to say they cannot be silent and deny their call from God to the priesthood. And it is my conscience that compels me to say publicly that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is a grave injustice against women, against our Church and against our God who calls both men and women to the priesthood.

In his 1968 commentary on the Second Vatican Council’s document, Gaudium et Spes, Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, said: “Over the pope … there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary, even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.”

What you are requiring of me is not possible without betraying my conscience. In essence, you are telling me to lie and say I do not believe that God calls both men and women to the priesthood. This I cannot do, therefore I will not recant.

Like the abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement and the right of women to vote, the ordination of women is inevitable because it is rooted in justice. Wherever there is an injustice, silence is the voice of consent. I respectfully ask that my fellow priests, bishops, Church leaders in the Vatican and Catholics in the pews speak out and affirm God’s call of women to the priesthood.

Your Brother in Christ,

Roy Bourgeois, M.M.  
P.O. Box 3330
Columbus, GA 31903

Source: America.

Other Voices

Please leave a reply.

Comments

90 responses to “Letter of Fr. Bourgeois to his order”

  1. Carlos Moreno

    Why is Fr. Bourgeois surprised at the sexism of the Catholic Hierarchy? These are, after all, the same people who are forcing this defective Missal translation down our throats….

    Reply
    1. Daniel McKernan

      Carlos, if this accusation is grounded in Catholic teaching on holy orders have you considered the ecumenical implication of your statement? After all, the Eastern Orthodox Churches do not ordain women to the priesthood or episcopate.

      Reply
  2. Mary Coogan

    Father Bourgeois, thank you for your courage in sending this letter! “Wherever there is an injustice, silence is the voice of consent.” These words remind me of the Rev. Jeannette Picard, who explained to me in 1974 how she made the decision to seek ordination in the Episcopal Church. Of course she prayed, and then she re-read scripture, the doctors of the church, virtually everything written on the question, and again she prayed. Perhaps she had hoped to hear the voice of God or to have some clear sign that she was right to seek the priesthood, but had none. Finally, she realized, “God does not love a wishy-washy sinner. If what I am about to do will prove to be a sin, then I must sin boldly.” She meant that others would later have the task of deciding whether the ordinations of the “Philadelphia Eleven” were right or wrong and that she must help them in that task by making her action as clear as possible. Her words still serve, I think, as an example of moral courage, the courage to act on conscience, as you say, even when all voices seem to oppose us and we cannot be sure that they will ever approve.

    Reply
    1. Mary Coogan

      The question I’ve had for some time about a woman ordained in the apostolic tradition of the Catholic church is whether she is not “a priest forever.” Granted, she is excommunicated by papal decree. But on what authority can the sacrament of Holy Orders be considered null and void of grace in her case?

      Reply
      1. John Drake

        A woman be ordained “in the apostolic tradition”. Maybe some wacky bishop might think he is ordaining her. But it cannot happen. Period.

      2. Gerard Flynn

        What about the women in the first century who hosted the meals which were followed by the blessing of the bread and cup, before they were preceded by a liturgy of the word, and who presided at these blessings? Did they not fulfill a priestly role?

      3. John Drake

        No.

      4. Gerard Flynn

        Presiding at the eucharist, such as those women would have done, in the first century, is the quintessential priestly role, is it not?

    2. Carolyn Bunn

      Mary – I admire your note of thanks toward Father Bourgeois. I, too, thank him for his courage.

      Reply
  3. Jack Feehily

    Fr. Bourgeois’ letter of conscience ought to be responded to on the basis of the substance of it’s content, not on the basis of his being subject to authority. If he is to be expelled from his family at the directive of the Vatican may God judge them as they judge. Isn’t that at the very root of the justice which the Master taught and lived.

    Doesn’t anyone in Rome know that this priest is at most a thorn in their side? When Paul asked to have his removed, God declined. He should be left alone. This issue is not going away because one priest has his collar taken away.

    Reply
    1. Claire Mathieu

      All right, then here’s an answer to point 1, for a start:

      (1) Excluding women from the priesthood implies that men are superior to women.

      Answer: no, because I don’t believe that priests are superior to other human beings.

      Reply
      1. Chris Grady

        Dear, it’s not about what you believe. There are some, for instance, who would agree (with good hard evidence to back them up, eg the abuse scandal) that it’s what MANY priests (and others) believe, which, at least in this instance, is much more important and crucial than anything you might believe or not believe!

      2. Brian Garland

        No one is right. God is God. We are not God. That’s the only ultimate truth.

      3. Claire Mathieu

        Ok, that was unclear. Excluding women from the priesthood, by itself, does not imply that men are superior to women. The implication only holds if the priesthood is a superior state.

        In any case, I don’t want to be cornered into defending a position that I don’t really hold. I look forward to the day when it will be possible to have women ordained, but I don’t approve Fr Bourgeois’s actions. Is that so hard to understand? Isn’t it possible to hold other positions besides, on the one hand, full support of the current ban (even a ban on discussions!!) and, on the other hand, full support of Fr Bourgeois?

        There are two topics on this thread: whether women should be ordained, and what to do about it.

    2. Mary Coogan

      I also believe in responding to the specifics of content; however, I understand why some are commenting on the aggressive use of authority as well. “To be ‘catholic’ is to be broadminded, liberal, and inclusive even if to be ‘Catholic’ in the Roman sense is not”: Theologian Mary E. Hunt looks at Father Bourgeois’ case and expresses some annoyance with the orthodoxy audits that create a climate of investigations, threats, and book banning. In “Catholic Church Targets Proponent of Women’s Ordination; Feminist Theologian,” Dr. Hunt writes about the chilling effect of cases such as Fr. Bourgeois’ and Dr. Elizabeth A. Johnson’s on theological discourse:

      .”So the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine declared that Professor Elizabeth A. Johnson’s latest book, Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God (NY: Continuum, 2007) contains ‘misrepresentations, ambiguities, and errors that bear upon the faith of the Catholic Church.’ Or, as the bishops insist, it ‘contaminates the traditional Catholic understanding of God.’ At issue is nothing less than how we engage in theological reflection in post-modernity—a wonderful topic for a follow-up article.”

      .
      http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/4476/catholic_church_targets_proponent_of_women%E2%80%99s_ordination%3B_feminist_theologian/
      On Sr. Johnson’s book banned by the American bishops: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/nyregion/31fordham.html?_r=1

      Reply
  4. Robert B. Ramirez

    This I cannot do, therefore I will not recant.

    Very impressive appeal to conscience. Of course, Fr. Roy’s conscience, being so well formed, is surely telling him also that notwithstanding the firmness of his convictions, he enjoys no charism of infallibility and therefore could be mistaken. And that, this being so, his duty to heed his conscience need not be in conflict with his duty to protect the faithful from scandal should he be in error. A man of such delicate sensibilities surely can appreciate that sometimes the most prudent and charitable option is to shut up.

    Reply
    1. Will Roach

      What are you afraid of?

      Reply
  5. MarkThompson

    “As we know, Jesus did not ordain anyone.” — Roy Bourgeois

    but:

    “If any one saith, that order, or sacred ordination, is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord . . . let him be anathema.” — Council of Trent, Session XXIII, Canon III

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Well, one is a church teaching, and the other is a historical claim, although they do seem to overlap. A church teaching, no matter how solemn, can’t change the facts of history. A lot of good scholarship has happened since the 16th century. No responsible historian or Bible scholar on the planet today would claim that Jesus instituted 7 sacraments by number, or that the apostles understood that there were 7 sacraments. Nor would any responsible historian or Bible scholar claim that there was a ministerial priesthood for some ordained members of the church, understood as such, in the first decades after the Resurrection – or for many more decades, for that matter.

      If the facts of history are such, or are very likely to be such, that doesn’t necessarily negate that ordination is a sacrament, or that the Church is in error in understanding it to be Christ’s will that the sacrament be understood as we now do.

      But again: solemn teachings can’t change the facts of history. Fortunately, our tradition affirms both faith and reason. This makes possible a continuing dialogue between scholars and the magisterium, and a mutual enrichment between the claims of faith (in their ongoing definition by the magisterium) and the findings of historical scholarship.

      Long story short: believe Catholic doctrine, but don’t be a fundamentalist about it.

      Excitement of doing Catholic theology: living in the interplay between faith and scholarship.

      awr

      Reply
      1. Michael Barnett

        “If any one saith, that order, or sacred ordination, is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord . . . let him be anathema.” — Council of Trent, Session XXIII, Canon III

        Perhaps Mark left out the line from Trent that said: let him be anathema unless he’s speaking as an historian or biblical scholar.

        Your concept of development of doctrine sounds like that of the modernists.

        When I was ordained, I had to swear an oath that said: “I firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals”. Did you take that oath?

      2. Daniel McKernan

        Most historians do not venture into matters of faith in such a way as to attempt to disprove the dogmatic teachings of Trent. Another point that could be made is that historians often disagree, sometimes err, & that the consensus of historians is subject to change. Additionally, historians are men with their own biases & points of view. A dogmatic council like Trent is not easily dismissed nor are its formulations subject to the consensus of today’s historians.
        I don’t think it is helpful to disregard Fr. Bourgeois’ seeming difficulty with a solemn ecumenical council of the Church.

      3. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        Daniel McKernan writes,

        “There is an implicit ‘sola Scriptura’ quality to the historical critical method, I’ve always seen it as carrying that danger.”

        I would strongly dispute this statement. The historical-critical method simply uses all the tools available to us to understand the original context and meaning as much as possible. How we then interpret the Scriptures – what the Spirit is saying to the churches – is another issue.

        I’m not sure where the skepticism toward the historical-critical method is coming from. The magisterium has officially endorsed the historical-critical method many times and enjoined it upon Catholic Scripture scholars. The Pope uses it in both of his recent books on the Lord Jesus. It has been used (and defended in scholarly publications) by Catholic Bible scholars on the Pontifical Bible Commission – e.g. Fr. Ray Brown.

        I would go so far as to say that rejecting the historical-critical method (e.g. because it is “Protestant”) is not an option for Catholics faithful to the magisterium.

        awr

      4. Jeffrey Pinyan

        Fr. Ruff, the historical-critical approach has its benefits and uses, but there is a danger in over-using it, in pushing it beyond its boundaries. Ratzinger/Benedict’s opinion is that “in two hundred years of exegetical work, historical-critical exegesis has already yielded its essential fruit.”

      5. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        Jeffrey,

        I agree that it can be misused, like any method.

        I know that as Cardinal Ratzinger he said that we’re in the era of the “criticism of criticism” – i.e., the historical-critical method no longer should have hegemony. But as to the claim that it has already offered what it has to offer … I’d have to look at his whole argument. I suppose as a set of methodological presuppositions, we know what those presuppositions are (e.g. use all available evidence) so we shouldn’t expect huge methodological breakthroughs. But I fully expect (I’m not sure if Ratzinger would have agreed or not) that the method will continue to make new and helpful discoveries –e.g. in archeology, philology, newly discovered contemporaneous documents, etc. If he thinks we’ve discovered everything we ever will, I’d have to disagree. But I wonder if that is what he said or meant. I have the impression that he was sometimes too critical of historical-critical, so perhaps my position is a bit different than his.

        awr

      6. Jeffrey Pinyan

        Fr. Ruff, you’re right, and I didn’t mean by my one-sentence quote to give the impression that Ratzinger (or I) thinks the HC method needs to be retired, as it were.

        The context of the quote is the foreword to Jesus of Nazareth II, which is available here.

        There’s also a quote from his interview with Peter Seewald (my emphases):

        The application of the historical method to the Bible as a historical text was a path that had to be taken. If we believe that Christ is real history, and not myth, then the testimony concerning him has to be historically accessible as well. In this sense, the historical method has also given us many gifts. It has brought us back closer to the text and its originality, it has shown us more precisely how it grew, and much more besides. The historical-critical method will always remain one dimension of interpretation. Vatican II made this clear. … What is needed is not simply a break with the historical method, but a self-critique of the historical method; a self-critique of historical reason that takes cognizance of its limits and recognizes the compatibility of a type of knowledge that derives from faith; in short, we need a synthesis between an exegesis that operates with historical reason and an exegesis that is guided by faith. We have to bring the two things into a proper relationship to each other. That is also a requirement of the basic relationship between faith and reason.

    2. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

      The danger of rewriting Church history from a purely secular or non-religious point of view is that it becomes precisely that a revisionist’s view of things without 20/20 post-resurrection/Pentecostal hindsight. Certainly one can say that in the New Testament, there is implicit in Jesus ministry the “founding” of the Church and the “instituting” of the sacraments, all seven of them. Of course, one cannot necessarily say that this is explicit, it is implied. After the resurrection, the seeds of Jesus’ implicit establishment of the Church and the seven sacraments grows and develops, but under the authority of the Risen Christ, unseen, but nonetheless still very much present in the early Church and continuing to this day. So in the sense of the “pentecostal” real presence of the Holy Spirit of Christ, Jesus continues to orchestrate the development of the sacraments implicit to his public ministry in and through the Church, in particular the Magisterium. Jesus is no less real today through the Holy Spirit and sacraments than when he walked the earth in His public ministry. The biggest difference is that this presence is veiled or hidden and not provable by scientific or historical analysis done by a secularist’s mindset.
      I’m not sure what is meant by being a Fundamentalist, other than slamming a part of Protestantism, which is rather unecumenical. I would have to agree that not being a fundamentalist would have to then be applied to not only the documents of Vatican II but more importantly the “spirit” of Vatican II.

      Reply
      1. Jonathan Day

        I don’t know exactly what “being a fundamentalist” means. But I can get at the opposite behaviour by quoting two Jesuits.

        …let it be presupposed that every good Christian is to be more ready to save his neighbor’s proposition than to condemn it. If he cannot save it, let him inquire how he means it; and if he means it badly, let him correct him with charity. If that is not enough, let him seek all the suitable means to bring him to mean it well, and save himself. (St Ignatius of Loyola)

        Be attentive, be intelligent, be responsible, be loving, and, if necessary, change. (Bernard Lonergan)

        Or to put it another way: instead of engaging in dialogue with no intent other than to belittle your correspondents and “win”, why not try hard to understand what they are trying to say?

        I see almost none of this in the “conservative” or “traditionalist” blog world, or in the writings of “apologists”. Instead, all is attack. Weak but prolix writers who have some facility in sarcasm are held up as models.

        Pray Tell is an unusual exception. I see little fundamentalism around Vatican II on the part of Fr Ruff or others here.

      2. Bill deHaas

        Fr. Allan – sorry, but either you are trying to spin a web with your secularist comments or you truly have no clue.

        A couple of your statements: “The biggest difference is that this presence is veiled or hidden and not provable by scientific or historical analysis done by a secularist’s mindset.”

        – Please, one goal of biblical research, exegesis, and archeology is to use scientific/historical critical analysis with the eyes of faith. You appear to make a distinction as if critical analysis is ONLY secularist. Many of the best biblical experts in the 20th/21st century use their scientific and historical methods to analyze and explain our faith and our tradition – that is one reason why bible translations have improved – original or close to original sources have been discovered and used.

        Second: your comment about fundamentalism. IMO, some of us would say that many of your comments indicate a pattern of fundamentalism.

        So, when you state: “I’m not sure what is meant by being a Fundamentalist, other than slamming a part of Protestantism, which is rather unecumenical. I would have to agree that not being a fundamentalist would have to then be applied to not only the documents of Vatican II but more importantly the “spirit” of Vatican II.”

        Again, either you are spinning a web or you are clueless. The frequent references and use of the term fundamentalist has very little to do with “slamming Protestantism or being unecumenical”. It has to do with an individual’s approach to faith; to scripture/sacraments, etc.

        For example, traditional catholic scriptural analysis is “contextual” not “literal”. A literal approach is “Fundamentalism”.

        For some of us, liturgical expressions and development that is only aligned with a specific past period/council is not contextual but literal and fundamentalism.

      3. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        Bill Dehass, people who have not moved on from the 1960’s and 70’s model of the historical critical method of studying the scriptures (in which I was well-schooled) do not seem to realize that this school is not infallible and there are better ways to use its method. Quite frankly I saw many seminarians lose their faith or have it eroded by the wrong-headed use of this method.
        A good article for you to read is:
        http://www.thesacredpage.com/2006/12/benedict-on-historical-critical-method.html
        Long story short, there are credentialed critics of this method when it is used in an unbridled way. Certainly though, it has its strengths.
        But as far as I can tell, if a Catholic wishes to view the creation account of the world literally, he may, just as long as he understands what the Church teaches concerning God and creation. The same would be true of the Catholic who uses a more scientific method. That is certainly permissible as long as that Catholic does not then abandon Church teaching concerning original sin, who create the world, etc.
        As far as Fundamentalism goes, its proper definition is: “An organized, militant Evangelical Protestant movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
        Adherence to the theology of this movement.”
        Catholic fundamentalism is not oriented toward the Bible alone or Tradition alone and thus cannot be classified under the umbrella of Protestant fundamentalism. Unfortunately, the term “fundamentalism” is now used by some Catholics to insult either Protestants who embrace it under its historical context or to insult other Catholics who embrace the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Church’s Magisterium. Either way, the insult is untoward and unecumenical.

      4. Daniel McKernan

        Bill wrote: “that is one reason why bible translations have improved – original or close to original sources have been discovered and used…”

        There is an implicit “sola Scriptura” quality to the historical critical method, I’ve always seen it as carrying that danger.

        And one thing Fr. Alan is not is “clueless”. His perceptions are highly valuable and offer considerable pastoral insight into the contemporary Church and to the most recent ecumenical council.

      5. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        I’m not sure I agree with Fr. Alan McDonald that the term “fundamentalism” is insulting. Nor would I limit my understanding of “fundamentalism” to his definition.

        There’s always a danger in using any label, I suppose – be it “liberal” or “traditionalist” or “reactionary” or whatever. But there has to be room for the fair and accurate use of labels. Surely it’s not always an insult to call someone “conservative.” But one does have to be careful not to use a label sloppily, or to box people in or limit them to one’s understanding of the label.

        “Fundamentalism” has so many meanings by now. I understand it to mean an irrational holding on to certain “fundamentals” – dogmas, beliefs, positions, doctrines, etc. – even in the face of evidence to the contrary. It also seems to be used in the media to describe zealous, fanatical attachment to one’s position.

        Protestant fundamentalism (in its many variants) tends to use Bible passages in a fundamentalist way – e.g. that the earth was created in six days despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary.

        I observe that fundamentalism in Catholicism today tends to use the magisterium in a fundamentalistic way. We see some in the blogosphere claiming that the magisterium has never changed its moral teachings, for example. Or we find later definitions (e.g., that there are seven sacraments) retrojected back to the era of the apostles. I think it is fair to label this attitude “fundamentalist.”

        I think that Catholic fundamentalism today is a serious pastoral problem. It creates so many problems – e.g. divisions within the church, loss of credibility of Catholicism in the eyes of the Church’s critics, the impeding of ecumenical progress.

        awr

    3. Gerard Flynn

      This is the same council which spoke so eloquently of the elevated nature of priesthood and episcopacy and indeed priestly celibacy and was at the same time presided over by a pope with four children (Paul III), a pope who was so infatuated with a 15 year old monkey tamer that he made him a cardinal and shared his bed with him, (Julius III), a pope who orderd that lay people who committed adultery and clergy and religious who broke their promise or vow of celibacy should be put to death, (Paul IV) and a pope who had a three children, (Pius IV).

      It puts your anathemas into context, MT.

      Reply
      1. Joe O'Leary

        Still, Trent had the best theologians of any Council. Papal morality is no more relevant to it than Constantine’s to Nicea.

  6. Linda Reid

    I applaud Father Bourgeois courage in speaking out for those who face discrimination within the church. I think his letter is beautifully and thoughtfully worded and I agree with his argument. Bless him!

    Reply
    1. Jeremy Stevens

      Aw c’mon, dude, she’s just balancing off you guys who would burn him at the stake! Fair and balanced and all that cool stuff!

      Reply
    2. Will Roach

      Oh Yea, Fr. Roy, That’s who this was about!:)

      Reply
  7. Claire Mathieu

    Many stories tell us about saints who were called to do something, whose attempts were thwarted by the church authorities, and who, then, either managed to convince them, or found another outlet for their call. They were the seed of change that helped the church grow.

    I don’t see Fr Bourgeois’s actions as particularly helpful for the church — but I could be mistaken. He wouldn’t be in trouble if he had limited himself to speech, not action.

    Since women’s ordination is not a life-and-death issue, since I can well imagine women who feel called to the priesthood finding other outlets for their need to preach and serve, I guess I am in favor of an attitude of “grumbling obedience”: follow the directives of church authorities while loudly expressing one’s disagreement.

    Isn’t that Fr Ruff’s attitude w.r.to the New Missal?

    Reply
    1. Joe O'Leary

      I agree — the actions, of taking part in illegal ordinations, are not defensible — though many share the view.

      Reply
    2. Karl Liam Saur

      I have a somewhat different take on the troubling thing here.

      When one ordains someone, one is proposing to the faithful that ordinand will have a certain kind of authority and, in the case of a pastor or bishop, jurisdiction over them. Ordination is not like baptism or other sacraments in that way. There’s a strong assertion over the rest of the faithful: you must accept the sacraments et cet of these folks as valid. The failure to ordain is not as assertive as a general matter over the entire faithful. I don’t think proponents of this approach understand that dimension of the problem.

      Reply
      1. Jordan Zarembo

        Karl: There’s a strong assertion over the rest of the faithful: you must accept the sacraments et cet of these folks as valid. The failure to ordain is not as assertive as a general matter over the entire faithful.

        Witness also the SSPX. They’ll argue eleventy-two ways to Sunday that they have “emergency jurisdiction” to celebrate sacraments which require licit episcopal jurisdiction. They don’t. Sure, the situation is slightly different in that the SSPX priests and bishops are validly ordained and consecrated. Also, their Masses are valid but illicit. However, SSPX priests aren’t licensed to hear confession or witness weddings.

        Those who yell abomination! at the Roman Catholic Womenpriests ordination videos and then hear Mass with schismatics on Sunday are also guilty of a private magisterium. Regardless of what one thinks about women’s ordination (and the SSPX for that matter), Karl is right: jurisdiction is the strong undercurrent behind both issues. Dig deeper, and ostensibly different issues are remarkably similar.

      2. Samuel J. Howard

        Jordan, as you well know, they can be suspended and lack jurisdiction without being schismatics.

        Your broad brush complaints about “traditionalists” seem to be escalating. In another thread you call them “obsessed” with the Douay. The requirements of charity apply towards traditionalists just like everyone else.

      3. Jordan Zarembo

        Sam: CIC 1983, Can. 751 […] schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. (my ellipsis)

        Yeah, prooftexting is lousy. Still, Sam, let’s face it: the SSPX vociferously denies that certain documents of the Second Vatican Council are false or even evil. If that’s not “refusal of submission”, I don’t know what is.

        I am traditional and modern at once: I love the EF, but I also want to live and move with the postmodern Church. We can have a modern, rational, and tolerant EF that is in full doctrinal and theological union with the OF. It’s safe for traditional Catholics to leave the emotional-intellectual bomb shelter. It’s also time for the EF faithful to cease the cultivation of a deliberate ignorance of the conciliar texts past Sancrosanctum Concilium. Both forms of the Roman rite must move forward in post-conciliar ecclesiological and theological orthodoxy. Otherwise, we risk the presentation of a needlessly defiant and reactionary stance to both the Catholic world and the post-Christian world.

        As for the D-R: no scripture should be an ideological wedge. The Vulgate is an inestimable gift to the Church. The recitation and cantillation of the ancient translation is central to the aesthetic and liturgical life of the Church. However, the recitation of scripture at Low Mass and catechetical instruction should employ translations based on the most current historical-critical research. The reification of liturgical translation into instructive translation is not only reactionary, but deleterious to the intellectual development of Christians.

        Charity also involves honest talk within the traditional community about the progression of traditional Catholicism.

      4. Samuel J. Howard

        However, the recitation of scripture at Low Mass and catechetical instruction should employ translations based on the most current historical-critical research.

        The recitation of scripture at Mass should be a translation of the liturgical text, which is the Vulgate.

        As for catechisis, if it’s about the liturgy, it should again be a translation of the liturgical text. If it’s not, then use whatever legitimate translation you prefer.

        But these two minor points hardly amount to your allegation, that traditionalists are obsessed with the Douay, which was completely over the top and pathologizes a minor area of disagreement between you and some portion of traditionalists.

        Many traditionalists by the way use the St. Andrews Missal translations for the “rereading” of the readings that is common at Latin Masses or for the handouts with the translations. For the New Testament, these are, I believe the Confraternity translation, no the Douay.

      5. Gerard Flynn

        “The recitation of scripture at Mass should be a translation of the liturgical text, which is the Vulgate.” S.J. Howard

        What force does this ‘should’ have? Is it simply an indication of your style of writing and communication in general? Have you a preference for dictating to people what should or should not be done? Such a style quickly become tedious to the ears of the hearer and the eyes of the beholder.

        The main argument against the Vulgate is that it is, at best, a second-hand translation. When there are translations available which have been made directly from the Hebrew of the Jewish Bible or, in the case of deutero-canonical works, and the New Testament, from the Greek, why settle for something second hand? The course of action you are prescribing parallels closely the situation wherein the text of the mass is translated into another language from, say the English translation, instead of from the Latin, – not a very desirable situation.

        It is indefensible to try to claim for Latin, in matters biblical, the prominence which it has in matters liturgical, at least in Latin-rite contexts.

      6. Samuel J. Howard

        Gerard, it’s an application mutatis mutandis of the L.A. norms 34-45 to the E.F. The Douay-Challoner and Confraternity versions are not straight translations of the Vulgate without reference to the Greek and Hebrew, neither are they without reference to the Vulgate. They seek to balance the liturgical and patristic tradition of the Church with the Latin text of the Vulgate. There’s a further step in preparing liturgical translations, because the pericopes are edited from the Vulgate, not taken from it directly.

        Such a style quickly become tedious to the ears of the hearer and the eyes of the beholder.

        You can feel free not to read my comments if you find them tedious.

        The main argument against the Vulgate is that it is, at best, a second-hand translation.

        Huh? Do you mean the argument agains the Douay? Because the Vulgate is not a second hand translation of the Greek.

        The course of action you are prescribing parallels closely the situation wherein the text of the mass is translated into another language from, say the English translation, instead of from the Latin, – not a very desirable situation.

        No it doesn’t, because the text of the pericopes is the text of the Missal.

        It is indefensible to try to claim for Latin, in matters biblical, the prominence which it has in matters liturgical, at least in Latin-rite contexts.

        Your rhetoric is outpacing my arguments. I haven’t argued for the adoption of Latin as the standard for Biblical translations.

      7. Gerard Flynn

        “The recitation of scripture at Mass should be a translation of the liturgical text, which is the Vulgate.”

        I am implying that to translate the scriptural parts of mass from the Vulgate is to effect a second-hand translation, from the original Hebrew, in the case of the Jewish Bible, or in the case of the deuterocanonical corpus and the New Testament, from the Greek.

        The text of the Missal (Vulgate in most cases, apart from the Psalms) is itself a translation. So, in that sense it is an exact parallel.

    3. Brigid Rauch

      Setting aside the particular subject (Ordination of women) and addressing the principle of grumbling obedience, I ask myself WWJD? I see to recall an incident not involving life or death issues that ended in a lot of tables being overturned.

      Come to think of it, I suppose you could say that incident was ultimately a disagreement over proper liturgy…..

      Reply
      1. Karl Liam Saur

        I am not sure WWJD. I can see several reasonable but very different and conflicting answers. I am no more sure of my instinct than I am of that of those who have other answers. People at either end have a certainty that does not resonate with my gut, for that matter.

  8. crystal watson

    Fr. Bourgeois is a brave and principled man.

    Reply
  9. Thomas Pomeroy

    A good book written by woman who at one time believe as you do:

    http://www.ltp.org/p-1514-the-catholic-priesthood-and-women-a-guide-to-the-teaching-of-the-church.aspx

    Reply
  10. crystal watson

    And a good article by a woman who continues to believe what I do 🙂 … “Did Jesus Exclude Women from Priesthood?” by Sandra M. Schneiders … http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/schneide.asp

    Reply
  11. Michael Barnett

    Anthony Ruff, OSB :

    Long story short: believe Catholic doctrine, but don’t be a fundamentalist about it.

    That has a ring to it! I think I’ll give it a try. Here goes:

    Long story short: believe Vatican II, but don’t be a fundamentalist about it.

    Reply
    1. Chris Grady

      Good for you, Michael. But if you’re going to be consistent you’ll have to loosen your hold on the anti-modernist oath you’re so happy about having taken, too!

      Reply
      1. Fr. Christopher Costigan

        By “anti-modernist oath” I assume you refer to the Nicene Creed and an almost literal recitation of Lumen Gentium 25?

      2. Michael Barnett

        I have never taken the anti-modernist oath. The oath I quoted is that currently required by the Church since Ad tuendam fidem was promulgated. Every new deacon takes it.

        Perhaps the fact that you mistake the current oath for the anti-modernist oath is instructive in understanding your approach to Catholic doctrine.

      3. Fr. Christopher Costigan

        The Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity:

        http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19880701_professio-fidei_en.html

        Lumen Gentium:

        http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

        I guess those outdated traditional anti-modernists got hold of Vatican II….

  12. Daniel McKernan

    A take on an old quip: “What is a (Catholic) fundamentalist? Someone more observant than me.”

    Reply
  13. Tom Poelker

    Joe O’Leary :

    Still, Trent had the best theologians of any Council. Papal morality is no more relevant to it than Constantine’s to Nicea.

    On what basis, what names do you have in mind in citing Trent theologians as best?

    Reply
    1. Joe O'Leary

      De Vega http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15319a.htm
      Seripando http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seripando

      Papal boyfriends do not reduce the admirable work of the thinkers behind the Decree on Justification (including the noble Contarini who did not live to see Trent). See Hubert Jedin’s great collection of essays on these figures, “Kirche des Glaubens, Kirche der Geschichte”.

      What the Papacy and its Inquisition made of Trent is another story.

      And of course Trent, no more than any other Council, was not an angelic affair, as Paolo Sarpi chronicled in his sizzling Istoria del Concilio Tridentino.

      Of course if Nyssa and Nazianzen are regarded as theologians of the Council of 381 I would have to cede the preference to them. And Vatican II had its fair share of distinguished periti.

      Reply
  14. Jeffrey Herbert

    I’m always troubled by statements like this from people who should, most definitely, know better than to make statements like this. So he believes that women should be allowed to be Priests. Fine. The Church teaches otherwise, so sorry but you’re in conflict with that. There are many things proposed by many groups with whom I disagree. Thus is why I am not a) A Democrat b)A Baptist c) A Jehova’s Witness d) A member of PETA…. you get the idea. I REALLY want to know what it is that causes people to say “I am an X” but I disagree with what “an X” believes or requires me to believe. It’s not just Catholics I’m talking about… it’s a rather odd variation on the cafeteria approach, but instead of choosing what you believe and ignoring the rest, you actually oppose those things which you don’t necessarily believe and complain about why the church can’t change it’s views to accomodate you.

    Did Fr. Bourgeois not know that women were prohibited from being ordained when he took his vows? Did he actually think that was going to change?

    Reply
    1. Chris Grady

      Do you really think that not agreeing with the prohibition (right or wrong) is deserving of being tossed out of one’s religious congregation and the priesthood?

      I mean, there are priests who molested young children who weren’t thrown out, and bishops who reassigned abusers and lied about it who were never disciplined . . . all this guy has done is disagree with a rule!

      Reply
      1. Claire Mathieu

        What “this guy has done” is much more than just state that he “disagreed with a rule”!

        In August 2008, Fr. Bourgeois participated in the ordination ceremony of Janice Sevre-Duszynska, a member of Womenpriests, at a Unitarian Universalist church in Lexington, Kentucky. According to NCR: “Saturday’s event was noteworthy because for the first time, a male Roman Catholic priest in good standing publicly joined the ceremony. Maryknoll Fr. Roy Bourgeois concelebrated at the ceremony and was a homilist.”

        http://ncronline.org/node/1568

      2. Robert B. Ramirez

        Do you really think that not agreeing with the prohibition (right or wrong) is deserving of being tossed out of one’s religious congregation and the priesthood?

        Bourgeois could be “not agreeing” till kingdom come, and remain in good standing. In no sense is this about disagreement, and it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise. This is about public dissent, defiant disobedience, and acts of schism.

    2. Gerard Flynn

      Jeffrey Herbert, presumably you have not yet heard of the phenomenon of the development of doctrine, that aspect of belief which changes and needs to change with the ongoing insights of each succeeding age, in order for belief to continue to be able to address the concerns of human beings of every today.

      Could I suggest to you a little volume by Dermot Lane, called The Experience of God: An Invitation to Do Theology, published by Veritas, Dublin.

      When belief fails to keep up with the advances of the human sciences there are avoidable casualties, such as Jan Hus, Galileo Galilei, and all of the great continental theologians of the 1950s who suffered silencing, exile and persecution from the curial machine. That many of them were rehabilitated subsequently is some consolation.

      Reply
      1. Jeffrey Pinyan

        I would imagine Jeffrey H. has heard of development of doctrine. I would also imagine, though, that he does not believe this particular doctrine (concerning the ordination of males to the priesthood) will or can develop in such a way as to permit the ordination of females.

  15. Chris Grady

    Anthony Ruff, OSB :

    I would go so far as to say that rejecting the historical-critical method (e.g. because it is “Protestant”) is not an option for Catholics faithful to the magisterium.
    awr

    You’re falling for playing their stupid game, Anthony, and you won’t win, because they’re just that much more stupid than you, and don’t want to hear what you’re saying, anyway.

    Reply
    1. Joe O'Leary

      Fundamentalism is indeed stupidity erected into a system.

      Reply
  16. Chris Grady

    Fr. Christopher Costigan :
    By “anti-modernist oath” I assume you refer to the Nicene Creed and an almost literal recitation of Lumen Gentium 25?

    No, I was referring to something Michael wrote before. Don’t assume anything.

    Reply
  17. Chris Grady

    Claire Mathieu :
    What “this guy has done” is much more than just state that he “disagreed with a rule”!
    In August 2008, Fr. Bourgeois participated in the ordination ceremony of Janice Sevre-Duszynska, a member of Womenpriests, at a Unitarian Universalist church in Lexington, Kentucky. According to NCR: “Saturday’s event was noteworthy because for the first time, a male Roman Catholic priest in good standing publicly joined the ceremony. Maryknoll Fr. Roy Bourgeois concelebrated at the ceremony and was a homilist.”
    http://ncronline.org/node/1568

    Yeah thanks for the lesson, dear, but he’s not being kicked out for attending the show, he’s being kicked out for disagreeing with the rule.

    Reply
    1. Claire Mathieu

      Mr. Grady, he would not be kicked out if he had only stated his disagreement without acting upon it.

      Reply
  18. George Andrews

    Father R–I would go so far as to say that rejecting the historical-critical method (e.g. because it is “Protestant”) is not an option for Catholics faithful to the magisterium.–

    I don’t think there exists a solid definition of ‘historical-critical method’ and I do think that the Holy Father has said that Bultmann’s method and his presuppositions, are in need of their own ‘criticism’.

    NTL, if Father gets elected pope, –you heard it from me first–all of us fundamentalists can expect to have a sentence added to the Credo:
    ‘I believe in the Q — the giver of Matthew and Luke, the marcan priority, the Johannine bolt from the blue, that no Apostle ever wrote any of them, and life everlasting….’

    Reply
    1. Chris Grady

      Wrong.

      ‘WE believe . . . ‘

      Reply
    2. Joe O'Leary

      The Marcan priority has been accepted by Catholic exegetes since Lagrange — if this is still hot news, with a whiff of heresy, I wonder what century we are living in?

      Of the four Gospels two have apostolic names attached. No exegete believes that Matthew or John wrote the respective gospels under their name. To present this as a way-out idea, when it is simply a matter of universally accepted historical common sense, is indeed a kind of fundamentalism, reminiscent of Bart Ehrman’s idea that if the texts transmitted under apostolic names are not by the apostles themselves they must be forgeries. What is the merit of this sort of obscurantism? Is their a virtue in cultivating head-in-the-sand ignorance? Look where it leads to in the world of Islamicism.

      Reply
      1. George Andrews

        Father O–The Marcan priority has been accepted by Catholic exegetes since Lagrange — if this is still hot news, with a whiff of heresy, I wonder what century we are living in?–

        Father O, risking Father R’s ire, I really would like someone like yourself to outline for me what the presuppositions for Q and the Marcan priority are.

        Naturally, its only fair for you to continue with what you see as the most solid proofs, interior or archaeoligical or testimonies from Apostolic Fathers.

        I’m afraid up until now I see somewhat circular reasoning. Putting it crassly -I know no other way– one line of reasoning seems to go….

        1) all modern people know that Christ’s miracles didn’t really happen.
        2) Mark records the fewest number of miracles.
        3) therefore Mark’s Gospel must have been written prior to Matthew and Luke’s miraculous accretions.
        4) Since Mark, the earliest Gospel, records fewer miracles and the later Gospels record more, it’s apparent that Christ’s miracles are pious accretions.

        have I grasped it? I hope not!

      2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        Nope, I don’t think you have grasped it, GA. Sorry.

        I will simply state this by way of summary:

        I have never seen in print the argumentation you give for the priority of Mark. Never. I think if you read virtually any textbook on the New Testament, any commentary (such as the New Jerome Bible Commentary with imprimatur and its essay on the Synoptic Problem) from the last 50 years or so, you will see that there is very widespread agreement – not unanimous but quite broad – that Mark is earliest. There is a whole host of reasons, and they come from lots and lots of people who don’t deny the possibility of miracles.

        awr

      3. Samuel J. Howard

        I have never seen in print the argumentation you give for the priority of Mark.

        It’s a quite famous one actually, it’s the one printed in the ninth edition of the Encylopedia Britannica and one of the earliest English language proposals of Marcan priority according to Robert Bruce Mullin. (This comment should in no way be read as weighing in with my own view on the questions of authorship, priority, etc., just the historical point that this was a reason for proposing Marcan priority and apparently an important one in the history of English-language Biblical criticism.)

      4. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        OK, thanks for the reference.

        When I read the argument, I immediately thought it sounded like Enlightenment hypercriticism of a couple centuries ago. Sure enough, it’s an early argument, as you say. It’s not from any Catholic in the last half century.

        I haven’t done intensive study of the history of the Synoptic Problem, so that’s probably why I didn’t recall your reference. I’m more familiar with the standard Catholic sources of the last fifty years or so, as I mentioned above. They certainly wouldn’t use this old argument.

        awr

      5. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        George,

        Marcan priority and Q are quite separable hypotheses. There are any number of people (such as me) who think Marcan priority is likely and Q is a dubious hypothesis (Mark Goodacre has made the most recent case against Q, pretty convincingly in my estimation).

      6. Jack Rakosky

        Yes, I agree that the Q hypothesis has its difficulties.

        A little thought experiment. Suppose we discovered Q in some cave and that it had more than the parts that are in Luke and Matthew.

        They might likely have not been included in Luke and Matthew because they did not fit into what many Christians considered to be Jesus’ words and his thinking.

        Since one assumes that there were copies of Q floating around like those of Mark, why did they not survive, especially when Mark survived? Again probably because many Christians thought the extra parts just did not fit well.

        My own opinion as a social scientist, is that we have most of the first century material (maybe minus a few letters). This is based on some spreadsheet models I have created of the various numbers of likely Christians, and Christian communities at various points in the first century, and more importantly the small number of writers that might have been available for those communities.

        I don’t think that there is another gospel, let alone a bunch of gospels setting out there in caves from the first century like we find in the second and third centuries where there are many more Christians, communities and writers, or that we will conclude that some of the second or third century gospels were really from the first century thought some have argued that.

      7. Joe O'Leary

        As the responses below show, head-in-the-sand ignorance is all the scoffers have to offer. They have far too little interest in the Bible to actually use good biblical scholarship such as the Jerome and New Jerome Biblical Commentaries, for starters. Of course I will be accused of intellectual snobbery and clericalist arrogance for suggesting this, and the victim card of the poor put-upon simple faithful will be trotted out. As Chris wisely commented, you can’t win!

    3. Joe O'Leary

      Q is probably a more adventurous hypothesis than the Marcan priority, but the case against Q seems to demand that Luke used Matthew’s Gospel and rearranged all the Q material in it in a way that he does not rearrange the Markan material. All of this is a bit like the epicycles used to defend Ptolemy against Copernicus. Q is just a commonsense supposition: when one finds a lot of material shared by two literary texts, distributed in quite different ways in both texts, with no apparent mutual influence between the two texts, it is normal to suppose that they are both drawing on a common source. The ambitious reconstructions of Q by Kloppenburg et al. are another, far more speculative matter. An excellent vindication of Q is C. M. Tuckett, “Q and the History of Early Christianity”.

      Reply
      1. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        Fr. O’Leary,

        I suppose it might depend on what one means by “Q.”

        “Rejecting Q” might mean that one is denying any source material apart from Matthew, Mark and Luke, meaning either that Luke used Matthew or that Matthew used Luke, which, as you point out, raises certain difficulties.

        “Rejecting Q” could also simply mean that one sees no reason to posit a single literary source in addition to Mark used by both Matthew and Luke.

        I would put myself in the latter camp, though I find the arguments made by the former camp interesting.

      2. Gerard Flynn

        Fritz, how then do you explain the agreements of Mt and Lk in passages where there is no Markan equivalent?

  19. Tom Poelker

    Jeffrey Herbert :I’m always troubled by statements like this from people who should, most definitely, know better than to make statements like this. So he believes that women should be allowed to be Priests. Fine. The Church teaches otherwise, so sorry but you’re in conflict with that.

    JH, you and others who enter strenuous objections in these discussions often make your above mistake of identifying the pope, or the Roman Curia, or the hierarchy with the Church. Part of this is due to bad translation. The English word comes from a shortening of the Scottish kirk via kyria as part of the name for the Christian building for worship, the Lord’s House. It carries none of the basic undertones of the NT word ekklesia, whose closest English equivalent is assembly, of people, not of buildings, or institutions, or laws, or even of doctrines. We are the Ekklesia. We are the assembled people of God.

    Just because this pope has issued a gag order to keep his theological opinion undiscussed, uncriticized, does not mean that it is Church Teaching.

    Fr. Bourgeois is in conflict with the theological opinion of the man who is currently pope and in violation of a rule made by that man against female ordination. That does not mean either that it is an established teaching of the church [There is historical evidence that the Church did ordain women for about a millennium] or that the gag order is a just law. Such orders usually indicate that the person issuing them lacks confidence in his ability to rationally defend what he holds.

    Reply
  20. Brian Garland

    We can’t use words for any argument. If we can say that you believe in God, then any other conversation is moot. No words exist, so they cease to matter.

    Reply
    1. Tom Poelker

      What does this mean?

      Reply
  21. Paul Inwood

    I suggest that an interesting read for some on this thread would be The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination, subtitled “Female Clergy in the Medieval West”, by Gary Macy, Professor of Theology at the University of Santa Clara (published by Oxford University Press, so not a lightweight fringe publication).

    This is not a book advocating the ordination of women, simply in-depth research through the historical evidence in the earlier Church. Some may not like what he unearths, but his scholarship is deep and his knowledge of the sources better than theirs is likely to be.

    Reply
  22. Brian Garland

    A serious question by just one guy trying to figure it out. What is the end game here. How can you expect anything to change when the main issue is I’m right and you’re wrong. As someone not educated like you, I can see why people label me. They’re right.

    Reply
  23. Tom Poelker

    Brian Garland :

    What is the end game here. How can you expect anything to change when the main issue is I’m right and you’re wrong.

    I think the end game for many here at Pray Tell is to insist on being treated like intelligent, educated, responsible adults rather than as simpletons or children or sheep. The point with regard to Fr. Bourgeois is that his multi-decade relationship with his community is being severed because of demands from the Roman Curia rather than because the relationship is broken for the persons directly involved.

    This sort of thing goes back to our discussions about the abuse of authority. This looks like more “might makes right” stuff. It seems like the same imperial pattern as all the others where discussion is forbidden or rules are imposed without anyone outside the Curia even knowing that rule making is in progress.

    It is not about right and wrong so much as about due process. Unfortunately those who disagree with this point do claim that it is about right and wrong and that they are right and that being right entitles them to use might. Of course, they can claim that all they want but the mere claim is a foundation of sand if it cannot hold its position in discussion.

    Reply
  24. Adam Wood

    Women’s ordination is not (only or primarily) an issue of justice. It is an issue primarily about theology and about the nature of Christ. Arguments based on justice or equality will always fail, because they are rooted in human ideas.

    The priest stand in the person of Christ. The Church teaches that women cannot adequately do so, they are not as much like Christ as men are- they are not enough like Christ. It is “exceedingly difficult” for the faithful to see Christ in woman.

    This is a serious theological and Christological issue, which goes much deeper than justice or egalitarianism. The exclusion of women from the priesthood is based on:
    a) While Jesus was a certain ethnicity, a certain height, a certain age, a certain skin color, a certain weight, and a certain gender, the only specific characteristic that priests need to share in common with him is genitalia shaped a particular way.
    b) Christ, who is “fully human” can be thought of in exclusively male terms. Which means that men are fully human. Women are not fully human. (NB: This is why it’s okay to use “man” to mean “all humanity.”)
    c) Since women are not enough like Christ to be priests, women are likewise not enough like Christ, period. That “whatsoever you do” thing therefore doesn’t need to apply.

    This is a big deal, much much bigger than most pro-women’s-ordination people even realize. The conservatives at least understand the stakes (our very conception of God and Christ, rather than our paltry human ideas about what’s fair), but their minds are darkened to a complete understanding of Christ’s nature.

    Go read Proverbs 8, or the Baruch reading from the Easter Vigil. Who do we think those passages are about?

    Reply

Posted

in

by

Other Voices

Tags:

,

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading