Should we try to make others Catholic? New CDF document

A new document from the Holy See's Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in response to some recent confusion regarding the need to promote full communion with the Catholic faith/Church in evangelization efforts.

In the recent past Cardinal Kasper has made some controversial remarks regarding whether it is a moral imperative to promote conversion to the Catholic Church...

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/
documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20071203_nota-evangelizzazione_en.html

The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church: an explanation

I am trying to catch up on some posts, so this is rather an old issue by now, but it is still worth a post. I found this article in "The Link" newsletter of the Archdiocesan Council of Catholic Women (Archdiocese of Dubuque, Iowa) [vol. 50 no. 3, Summer issue 2007]. I find this explanation by Fr. Jerry Kopacek of St. Edward parish in Waterloo, IA. to be a good one.
_________________________________________________________

"The new document goes on to explain how the Catholic Church uses the word 'church' in a rather technical or theological sense to refer to a Christian community that has preserved apostolic succession and all seven sacraments (in particular, the Eucharist and the ordained priesthood)."

In July of this year, the Vatican (specifically, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a statement having to do with the Catholic Church's understanding of herself as Church and her relationship with other Christian churches and communities. The document's lengthy title is "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church" [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/
cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_
responsa-quaestiones_en.html ]
and it was released with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI. From the reports of the secular media and from the reaction of some of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters, you might get the impression that the Church is saying that all non-Catholisc are unimportant or cannot be saved.

The truth, of course, is something entirely different. This new statement simply restates and clarifies a document from the same Congregation in the year 2000 on the same subject-[ Dominus Iesus, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/
cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html ] that document in turn was based largely on the documents of the Second Vatican Council. The issue at hand is the Catholic Church's doctrine and understanding of herself as Church. This new document reminds us that Jesus established only one church when He lived on this earth, the one Church of which He is head. And to that one Church Jesus entrusted the various elements, teachings and practices that were to be taught to and lived by His followers. These elements include all the seven sacraments Jesus instituted and which are transmitted and carried on through the Church's life and history by means of apostolic succession--through the apostles and their successors (the bishops) in a constant and unbroken line up to our own time. Because of that apostolic succession, the Catholic Church has been able to preserve the faith and the sacramental life in their fullness.

The new document goes on to explain how the Catholic Church uses the word "church" in a rather technical or theological sense to refer to a Christian community that has preserved apostolic succession and all seven sacraments (in particular, the Eucharist and the ordained priesthood). Thus, the various eastern Orthodox Churches (Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc.) are true 'churches' in this sense since they have that succession and thus have preserved all the sacraments. We are unable, however, to share full communion with the Orthodox churches since they do not accept the role and authority of the pope as the successor of St. Peter as we do. The various Protestant communities, on the other hand, do not have and do not claim apostolic succession and thus do not have the priesthood or the Eucharist as the Catholic Church understands and lives out those sacraments. Because of those circumstances, those communities are not 'churches'--again, using the techinical or theological definition of the term. They certainly are, however, our brothers and sisters in Christ with whom we share belief in Jesus as lord and Savior and with whom we rejoice in our common baptism and reverence for the Sacred Scriptures as a vitally important element of the word of God. As the document says: "...these separated churches and communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact, the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation".

We need to thank God daily for the gift of our Catholic faith and Church; we need to thank God daily for the fact that Jesus loved us enough to establish the one Church as the means by which His truth and His gospel could be preserved, known, taught and transmitted throughout the world and throughout history. How blessed and privileged we are to be members of the Body of Christ!
-Rev. Father Jerry Kopacek, St. Edward, Waterloo, IA

When Catholics Fight the Church

This is a follow-up article about the resignation of Tom Girsch (pictured to the left with wife Molly--picture is from the DesMoines Register's article on the web), the former football coach of Columbus High School, a Catholic school in Waterloo. Mr. Girsch was forced to submit his resignation because he, while representing the Church as a teacher in a Catholic school, was not living in conformity with Catholic moral teaching and the Precepts of the Church. This article is from the Sept. 3rd issue of the DesMoines Register, I will post the article in its entirety and also will add my own comments (which appear in blue). You can read the article (and the lively and the scathing reader comments) on-line at:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps
/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709030340

'Fighting church is difficult for us'
Former Waterloo teacher pursues lawsuit over job he lost after Catholic Church declined to annul his first marriage
By SHIRLEY RAGSDALE sragsdale@dmreg.com

REGISTER RELIGION EDITOR
September 3, 2007

Tom and Molly Girsch had less than a week of wedded bliss before their lives were thrown into a turmoil that tested their marriage, faith and livelihood.

OK, right off the bat this article sounds like it has a bias towards the couple (who the reader can see in a lovely picture)--you may note that as you read the rest of the article the humanity of the Girsch couple is clear--while the position of "the Church" is not explained well, and is left to appear as a heartless institution.

The simple civil ceremony performed before a handful of friends and family members in their backyard Aug. 4, 2006, launched the Waterloo couple's new life together.

Let us give the technical description of what has happened here. By this action Mr. Girsch publicly initiated what amounts only to an adulterous affair with a woman who is not his wife. That is to say, Mr. Girsch remains validly/sacramentally married to his first civil-marriage wife (a civil divorce does nothing to dissolve the bond established in a sacramental marriage). This second civil marriage is not a sacramental marriage for many reasons. This is what the universal Code of Canon Law has to say about this issue: "A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage." (Can. 1085.1) "Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity of dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately and certainly." (Can. 1085.2)

It also began the end of Tom Girsch's three-decade career as a teacher and coach at Columbus High School, a Catholic school in Waterloo.

Over the next year, Girsch would negotiate a revised contract, the Cedar Valley Catholic Schools' board would take two votes on whether he could stay, and the archbishop would weigh in on the controversy. In the end, for lack of a church annulment, the social studies teacher would be forced to resign.

"The wedding was supposed to be a happy thing," said Molly Girsch. "We had been lucky (in love) once before, and we were overjoyed we could be lucky again."

Molly, 52, was a widow and a substitute teacher at Cedar Valley Catholic Schools. Tom, 59, divorced in 1997. They met through a mutual friend about 10 years ago and were friends before they began dating."

We didn't think the marriage was going to cause trouble," said Tom Girsch. "But a few days after the ceremony, I got called to the office. When I walked in, (school officials) offered congratulations on my marriage and said they were happy for me. Then they asked if I ever got an annulment. I said I hadn't. Then they asked if I was aware that they could terminate me."

After teaching in a Catholic school for some 30 years did Mr. Girsch not realize that by his actions he was violating one of the precepts of the Church and was contracting an invalid marriage? Did he care? Did he bother to ask a priest or fellow Catholic friends for counsel? Did he bother to bring the issue up to the school BEFORE he contracted this second marriage? What did his teacher's manual and contract (which is signed each year by every teacher) say about the need to live in conformity with Catholic moral law and canon law? If I was in the position of the school officials, I would have told Mr. Girsch that I was glad that he found someone he loved, but that I was disappointed that he chose to marry outside of the Church and deny himself the benefits of a possible sacramental marriage.

Church sees teachers as examples of faith.

About half of U.S. Catholics, by the 20th anniversary of their first marriage, have divorced, according a 2002 study. The church does not make public the number of annulments granted.

I am not sure about this. I have read figures before... and they are large. The Church in the U.S. surpasses, by far, all other nations in declarations of nullity. I do not know the percentage of cases that receive a declaration of nullity, but I know that it certainly is not rare! In other words, if I hear that a marriage case, once heard, was not declared null, I would be apt to suspect that the court really could find NO legitimate grounds to recognize the marriage as invalid.

While the Catholic Church recognizes that some marriages fail despite the best efforts of the couple, it views marriage as a sacred covenant that cannot be broken by civil divorce. While parishes give support to divorced Catholics, they may not remarry with church blessing unless they receive an annulment - a determination by church officials that their first marriage was invalid.

This is not some wacko Catholic rule. The Catholic Church received this straight from Our Lord Jesus Christ. Read Matthew 19:1-9: "They are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no man must separate... I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery." I know that this is a sensitive issue... and divorce is a painful experience. The Church is sympathetic (which is why it offers pastoral support to those who deal with divorce and separation)... but the Church is also duty-bound to hold fast to the teaching of Christ on marriage as exclusive and indissoluble.

Annulments do not nullify the first marriage, but are granted under the criteria that some element of the marital bond, while presumed to be present, actually was lacking when the parties married, according to the Metropolitan Tribunal for the Archdiocese of Dubuque.

The statement that "annulments do not nullify the first marriage" can be a bit confusing. An annulment is precisely a declaration of nullity. That is, an annulment is an official recognition by the authoritative Church, upon examination of the facts, that a certain marriage was invalid from the very moment it was contracted. Perhaps the Tribunal meant that the annulment does not annul the original civil marriage--i.e., it does not deem the children of that union as "illegitimate" (that is a chief concern of many Catholics who approach the annulment process.

It might also be good to explain what circumstances could render a sacramental marriage as invalid and null. I am no canon lawyer, but by consulting my copy of the Code, I can mention some of the specific impediments to marriage can include: a man not being of the age of 16, a woman not being of the age of 14 (Can. 1083.1), antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse on the part of the man or the woman (Can. 1084.1), a person bound by the bond of a prior marriage (Can. 1085.1), the marriage of a baptized Catholic and an unbaptized person (Can. 1086.1), those in sacred orders [diaconate, priesthood, etc.] (Can. 1087), those bound by a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute (Can. 1088), those who are held captive against their will for the purpose of marriage (Can. 1089), in a direct line of consanguinity (Can. 1091), those who do not give free consent of the will to the marriage [i.e. no shot-gun weddings] (Can. 1095), and ignorance of the purpose of marriage as a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation (Can. 1096), etc., etc.

When school officials suggested that if Girsch sought an annulment he might be allowed to continue to teach, he said he told them he'd have to check with his former wife, current wife and his family. He asked for some time, but by the end of the day, school officials notified him that he had 48 hours to resign or be terminated. The difference between the expectations for Catholic teachers and teachers of other faiths centers around the Roman Catholic Church's beliefs concerning the sacraments and supporting the precepts of the church, according to Jeff Henderson, Dubuque Archdiocese superintendent of schools.

"In the Catholic Church, teachers are referred to as witnesses and examples of faith," Henderson said. "By contract, a teacher also agrees to conduct himself as a moral person, ... to be a community leader and faithful citizen of the church and state, and act accordingly at all times."

Do we have any denial of this by Mr. Girsch?--surely someone who has been teaching in a Catholic school for so long must have been aware of this contractual obligation?

Again, from the Code of Canon Law: "The instruction and education in a Catholic school must be grounded in the principles of Catholic doctrine; teachers are to be outstanding in correct doctrine and integrity of life." (Can. 803.2, my emphasis in bold) [by the way, while you should not read certain canons of the Code out of the context of the entire Code, the canons of the Code that deal with Catholic education in schools consist of only 3 pages--they can be read in one sitting, they are available in book form and on the Vatican website http://www.vatican.va/ ]

"So relieved people stood up for us"

News of the school board's ultimatum spread quickly.

"It was like a tidal wave of e-mail in the Catholic community," said Kathy McCoy, a friend of the Girsch family. "Tom got thousands of supportive e-mail messages from students, current and past, from all over the world."

Cedar Valley officials were also hearing from people, according to George Scully, a Waterloo Catholic. Scully said he believes that uproar led the school and archdiocese to negotiate a revised contract with Tom Girsch.

Their support, while touching, was sadly not informed by the facts about what the Catholic teaching is regarding marriage and what the Catholic school's expectations of its Catholic teachers were.

The agreement, signed Sept. 7, 2006, specified that Tom would immediately seek an annulment through the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Dubuque. If the annulment wasn't granted, he would submit his resignation, which the school board could accept or reject. He also agreed to work with the school board to "heal the wounds that may have been created by the situation."

Although many Catholics receive annulments, Girsch's request was denied. The annulment proceedings are secret.

Interesting how the reporter describes the annulment proceedings as "secret" rather than "confidential." Would you describe the medical records that your health providers keep or your employee files as "secret" or as confidential? The proceedings and documentation of an marriage case are extremely detailed and personal. Would Mr. Girsch or his first wife want those details opened to investigation and publication by the DesMoines Register? Do we need to have every case decided by a marriage tribunal reviewed and confirmed by a newspaper reporter? "Secret" is a useful word because it invokes the culture of corruption that the Church is constantly flogged with due to the clergy sexual abuse scandal (don't get me wrong, there were true acts of administrative corruption in some cases--but does that mean that everything the Church does is sinister? This is where anti-Catholics can have a field day. Give me a break).

Girsch submitted his resignation to the Cedar Valley school board July 12. He told the board that his resignation was extremely painful, but that he was meeting all the stipulations in the revised contract. Six of Girsch's supporters and his attorney asked the board to reject his resignation.Brendan Quann, attorney for the archdiocese, told board members that it was an unfortunate situation, but that they had to vote not out of sympathy but in favor of the laws of the church, according to the meeting minutes.

"This situation is not about Tom and his performance, but about the precepts of the church and Tom knowing these when he signed the contract," [my emphasis in bold here] said Quann, who went on to warn the board that not accepting the resignation would set a precedent for future special requests.

Right on Mr. Quann. He is right! Does anyone not see the problem here? As a Catholic school one of the school's mission is to pass on the Gospel and the teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. One of those teachings would be regarding the nature of the sacrament of marriage (that it is permanent, ordered to the creation and education of children, and exclusive between 1 man and 1 woman). Now, it is a pretty important task for the Catholic school to educate the students in the meaning of the sacrament of marriage seeing as how the vast majority of its graduates will end up entering into marriage (you hope a valid sacramental marriage--but this is becoming less common). What happens when a student in theology class learns what a true Catholic marriage is and then cynically scoffs at his teacher and says, 'no one believes this, even my social studies teacher Mr. Girsch does not live by that, he is divorced and remarried and he is teaching here!'??? That is an example of hypocrisy (teaching one thing and doing another) and scandal. If Mr. Girsch is as noble as he claims to be, he should recognize this fact and just resign with dignity (instead of adding scandal to scandal).

When the board returned from executive session, the Rev. Lou Jaeger, pastor of Sacred Heart Parish, made a motion to regretfully accept the resignation. In a show of hands, Girsch's resignation was rejected, 8-6. The room erupted in applause."

I thought it was over," said Tom Girsch. "I was so relieved that people stood up for us and that everybody was honorable."

Sorry, but I do not see this as an example of honor. Loyalty, certainly, but where is the honor in betraying the mission of a Catholic school, knowingly violating the terms of your contract, and then attacking the Church because they uphold the principles upon which a Catholic school is founded.

His sense of relief evaporated soon after, when Dubuque Archbishop Jerome Hanus sent a letter to the school board insisting that the board follow church law and archdiocesan policy.

Bravo Archbishop Hanus! This is the tough job that bishops are called to do--defend the Faith when it is under attack.

A special board meeting was called for Aug. 6 to reconsider the vote. On Aug. 2, Girsch sued the school and archdiocese, asking the court to bar the second vote and force the board to issue him a contract.

On Aug. 6, Black Hawk County District Judge George Stigler refused to act, stating he didn't want to get involved with church business.

Good decision Judge, it is called the 1st amendment--we don't need the government coercing the Church to act against its conscience.

That evening, the board reversed itself, voting unanimously to accept Girsch's resignation.

Most people in the room interpreted the archbishop's letter as a threat to remove church funding from Cedar Valley schools. They could not survive as a private school, people agreed.

How sad. Do they want to be a "private school" or a "Catholic school"--because that is what they were founded as? "Dumb old bishop ruining our wonderful private school with his fuddy duddy Catholic beliefs."

Girsch left the meeting without a job, and without benefits.

"It's difficult not to be bitter"

"Tom was the face of Columbus High School in this community, and after 32 years, they threw him away without a pension or retirement," said McCoy. "That's great thanks for all the students he's helped. It's difficult not to be bitter."

What is the pension that Catholic teachers ordinarily receive?

When it comes to church matters, the archbishop holds the cards, according to Waterloo attorney Tim Luce, a former Cedar Valley board president. "The archbishop is the president of every corporation in the church. It's a tough deal. This would have been easier if Tom hadn't been such a good teacher," said Luce.

Mr. Luce must have read his Code of Canon Law:

"The Catholic religious instruction and education which are imparted in any school whatsoever or are provided through the various instruments of social communication are subject to the authority of the Church. It is for the conference of bishops to issue general norms about this field of action and for the diocesan bishop to regulate and watch over it." (Can. 804.1 my emphasis in bold)

"The local ordinary [=in this case, the presiding Diocesan bishop] is to be concerned that those who are designated teachers of religious instruction in schools, even in non-Catholic ones, are outstanding in correct doctrine, the witness of a Christian life, and teaching skill." (Can. 804.2 my emphasis in bold)

"For his own diocese, the local ordinary has the right to appoint or approve teachers of religion and even to remove them or demand that they be removed if a reason of religion or morals requires it." (Can. 805, my emphasis in bold)

Thank goodness that the archbishop "holds the cards" because, in this case, HE IS RIGHT and the emotionally-invested school board and personal friends of Mr. Girsch, Mr. Girsch himself, and his lawyer ARE ALL WRONG.

Tom and Molly Girsch have stopped attending St. Edward Catholic Church - where Tom attended as a child and where his children were reared - after their parish priest, the Rev. Jerry Kopacek, spoke about Tom's case from the pulpit.

"Tom was used as an example by name, and I thought it was in poor taste," said Patricia Connell of Waterloo, who attended the Saturday evening service."

Father Kopacek spoke about Tom's divorce and remarriage, that he didn't get an annulment. He said the local school board was given the job of accepting Tom's resignation, and when it did not, the archdiocese had to remind them to follow Catholic doctrine. He used it as a springboard to review church rules on marriage and annulment."

Kopacek denies "giving any details about the nature of the case."

"I would never do that," Kopacek said. "It would be totally inappropriate. I spoke on the general process, what annulment is about. There are a lot of misconceptions."

Fr. Kopacek is right about there being a lot of ignorance and misconceptions about the nature of the annulment process (and, I would add, of the nature of the sacrament of matrimony itself). You can certainly observe that by reading this article and the interview comments. However, one could certainly question his prudence in bringing up the issue, mentioning names, etc. at a time when passions were aflame. (And, having not heard his homily, it is hard to know what he really said.) He was probably trying to address head on an issue that man of his parishoners were obviously preoccupied with. He also probably wanted to defend the teaching of the church and the position that the Archbishop has to take in such a situation. Still, there is a time and manner in which to take on the subject. But again, I was not there so I cannot judge.

Girsch's breach-of-contract lawsuit is pending.

"Fighting the church is difficult for us," he said. "They never want to talk about the legal part of this, they want to push the church part. They wrote a contract stating if I fulfilled it I could teach. I fulfilled it. I won the vote, and it should have been over."

Religion Editor Shirley Ragsdale can be reached at (515) 284-8208 or sragsdale@dmreg.com

Yeah, leave it to the Catholic Church to worry about "the church part" when considering who they allow to teach in their schools (in this case, "the church part" refers to the universal Code of Canon Law, the evanglizing and catechizing mission of a Catholic High School, the integrity of the Catholic teaching that is being passed down, the authority of a bishop, etc.). I also have not seen the contract, but I would need to see it with my own eyes to believe it. Did his contract actually say that if Mr. Girsch simply filed his case for an annulment with the marriage tribunal REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME than his contract would be automatically extended? I just cannot believe that the school would draw up a contract that is so obviously counterintuitive and in violation of Canon Law on a number of counts. If they did--then shame on them--but I would have to see that to believe it.

A Catholic school should be Catholic first... a Catholic school does exist to be simply a "private" school with a good football program. A Catholic school's mission is to educate students

not merely in math, history, and science,... but to hand down the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of His Church. If you want something else, sign your kid up at a "private school."

By the way, I do not mean any of this to be a personal attack on Mr. Girsch. His very public actions, and his legislative action against the Church, has brought up some interesting issues such as the popular understanding of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony among some of the laity and, more importantly, the issues of the mission of a Catholic school, teaching with integrity, and the authority of the bishop. Very few people attempt to present the position of the Church which is why I have attempted to do so here.

By the way, immediately after finishing this LONG post, I went over to "In the Light of the Law", a blog run by Canon Law expert Ed Peters. Peters, unlike myself, actually knows what he is talking about regarding the issue of canon law. Check out his post, with the headline: "NEWS FLASH: Catholic Church expects faithful to follow her rules!":

http://www.canonlaw.info/2007/09/
news-flash-catholic-church-expects.html

Pope Benedict XVI and the Latin Mass

Happy Easter - He is Risen! - Regina Caeli, Laetare, Alleluia!


I am very busy with work lately, otherwise I would try to post more items related to the Easter Octave. However, here is a little something...l


Time Magazine covers the latest on Pope Benedict XVI and movements to ease restriction on celebrating the traditional Latin Mass. For what it is worth, I add some of my own editorial comments after each paragraph (I write in BLUE):

A Step Backward for Pope Benedict?
Friday, Apr. 13, 2007 By JEFF ISRAELY/ROME in TIME magazine

Two years into his papacy, Benedict XVI may be about to reclaim his reputation as a no-holds-barred traditionalist. Thanks to Benedict's thoughtful manner, Church progressives had believed that the man who was once the hard-line Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger would cut some slack on areas of doctrinal contention — using his intellectual heft and traditional credentials as necessary cover to. But as Benedict turns 80 on April 16 and marks two years as Pope on April 18, the once hopeful progressives have all but given up their fantasy of Benedict the Reformer.

Did "progressives" actually think that "Benedict the Reformer" would "reform" the Church by "cutting some slack on areas of doctrinal contention." "Cutting some slack"... that sounds like something that an immature teenager asks his parents to do. God did not give the Pope--the vicar of Christ on earth--authority over the 1 billion some Catholics in the world so that he could "cut some slack" with regards to the truth. Pope Benedict takes another approach: he chooses to EMBRACE the truths of our faith, PROCLAIM them in all their beauty and splendor, DEFEND them against a world that is set against them, and TEACH and persuade his spiritual children so that they can do the same.


In the coming weeks, the Pope is expected to release a document that would allow the widespread return of the traditional Latin Mass, which was all but shelved with the reforms of the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s. Vatican Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone recently confirmed to Le Figaro newspaper that this motu proprio, or personal initiative of the Pontiff, will allow any priest to say the mass according to the old Tridentine rite (which is delivered in Latin with the priest facing the altar, his back to the congregation), rather than have to seek approval from the local bishop as is now required.

The author leaves out a lot of important points here. First, Pope John Paul II wrote an apostolic letter in 1988 entitled "Ecclesia Dei." In this letter the late pontiff stated that:

respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.

The entire document is available on the Vatican website:
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/
pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_
jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
Of course, the Pope also instituted a permanent pontifical commission also called "Ecclesia Dei" ( www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_
commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com
_ecclsdei_pro_20051996_en.html ). (So, it is not accurate to attribute all of this recent movement with regards to a reconsideration of the Latin Mass just to Pope Benedict.) In many dioceses, the local bishop has not carried out this request of Pope John Paul II. Some bishops have either "ghetto-ized" the Latin Mass into select oratories or they have not applied the directives of Ecclesia Dei nor allowed for the Latin Mass with any generosity at all.

Eighteen months ago, one Rome-based progressive cleric had said he was "surprised to see that [Benedict] seems to be open to hear new ideas." But today, the same priest is disappointed. There has been no sign of any of the hoped-for reforms: overturning the ban on communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, reconsidering the celibacy requirement for priests, allowing gays in seminaries, or a softening of the condom ban to allow for distribution in AIDS-ravaged Africa. The release last month of the Pope's final document on what had seemed to be a convivial and intellectually open October 2005 bishops' meeting on the Eucharist is a good example of the Pontiff's approach. According to a senior Church official who participated: "He took all that debate of the Synod, and then gave us a document that simply defends the status quo." This same official acknowledges a bit of past excessive optimism on Benedict: "People were hoping that with his intellectual acumen and understanding of theology, he'd be in a position to make some of these changes. Unfortunately, at this point, I don't think we'll see any of them."

This kind of things always makes me laugh. I guess that this anonymous "progressive" priest considers the Pope "open to hear new ideas" and impressive in his "intellectual acument and understanding of theology" ONLY if he agrees with a particular progressive agenda. For one thing, the ideas mentioned above ("overturning the ban on communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, reconsidering the celibacy requirement for priests, allowing gays in seminaries, or a softening of the condom ban to allow for distribution in AIDS-ravaged Africa") can hardly be considered "new ideas." Priestly celibacy has been debated and wined about ad nauseum. Many would say that the predominance of gays in seminaries in the 1970's and 1980's has led to some of the problems that the Church has recently had to deal with in the priesthood. In fact, the Pope would more likely be expected to push for true reform in that area given the recent events of the crisis. He is also trying to defend the value and beauty of priestly celibacy which is always under attack by a society that is confounded and threatened by the very idea of celibacy. Again, Pope Benedict XVI like JPII before him, probably wants to reform the Church's impoverished understanding of celibacy (both clergy and the laity need help understanding this). According to an unnamed "senior Church official", the Pope "took all that debate of the Synod, and then gave us a document that simply defends the status quo." Well once again, just the mere fact that a synod involves debate does guarantee that the Pope will automatically adopt some of those suggestions. The Pope is counseled by the bishops in the Synod, and he has to be the final arbiter... he is the one who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the Church has what it needs at a given time.

Of course, beyond the doctrinal front, plenty has changed these past two years for the Bavarian prelate and Vatican insider. He has become a world leader and has been learning lessons in tempering his ideas with public relations, having given controversial speeches and been confronted with fiery inter-faith conflict, particularly with Islam. A trip next month to Brazil, the first ocean crossing and first time among the fervent flock of the Third World, will further test both the pastoral and political aspects of his job, as Latin America continues to deal with widespread poverty and the continent's Catholics increasingly lose ground to Evangelical movements. Still the Pope has managed to keep up his writings, including the conclusion of a book he began in 2003 on the life of Jesus, which comes out Monday in Italian and German, and next month in English.

By the way, the Pope was right with his comments regarding Islam (even if the mode for expression that he chose was awkward and open to misunderstanding). And where was the apology for the Catholic churches that were burned... or the Catholic nun who was senselessly murdered (even while she helped to serve the health needs of Muslims!). I am glad that he had the guts to say what needed to be said.

A significant part of any Pope's job is to manage questions of doctrine and discipline. Benedict's "no wiggle room" approach is increasingly seen in the context of his great battle to defend Catholicism on its historical home turf of Europe, where he sees a kind of cult of secularism. The Pope's response is not simply to reaffirm the Christian values of the old continent, a goal also expressed by the continent's more liberal leaders and theologians like Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Cardinal Godfried Daneels. In addition, Benedict professes a very specific kind of Christianity, one based not only on the teachings of Jesus, but on abiding by the letter of ancient Catholic Church traditions as the only effective bulwark against rampant relativism.

Well, the "teachings of Jesus" ARE found both in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. (Duh!)
The point is right on--without sacred tradition and the guidance of the Magisterium, other Christian groups have managed to warp the Christian message into a strange form (all with justification from Scripture).

In fact, the one major disciplinary about-face expected is this coming document on the Latin Mass, a concession to the ultra-conservatives, who have been living and praying on the fringe of the Church since the reforms of the Second Vatican Council brought in Mass in the vernacular. Said one Rome-based priest: "Opening up the Latin rite to anyone would amount to the Church turning back the reforms of Vatican II." A Vatican official who has worked closely with the Pope said that loosening rules on the Latin rite has been a long-time personal goal of Ratzinger, who had led what turned out to be failed negotiations in the early 1980s to bring back into the fold the followers of the breakaway French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who have defied the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

Notice the typical political jargon of journalists: "a concession to the ultra-conservatives."
Would wider use of the traditional Latin Mass bring about a "turning back [of] the reforms of Vatican II"? That is hard to say. Many would argue that the liturgy as we have it today does not really resemble what is called for in the documents of Vatican II. For example, while the document on the liturgy stated that "the use of Latin...is to be preserved in the Latin rites" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, #36), when is the last time that you have sung the Pater Noster, or the Agnus Dei, or the Gloria at Mass? One of Pope Benedict's great missions in his pontificate seems to be to bring about a "reform of the reform." I do not think that he wants to comletely negate the liturgical changes of Vatican II--but he does want to turn back liturgical abuses (done often in the name of the "spirit of Vatican II") and restore the liturgy to what was originally envisioned by Vatican II. Where the use of the (1962) traditional Latin Mass alongside the post Vatican II Novus Ordo Mass fits into this reform, however, is another question. I do not think that it would be an easy question.

The Vatican official says that Benedict believes that the Council's legacy "has been abused," and finding a way to widen access to the Latin rite "has always remained in his heart." Still, even mainstream members of the Roman hierarchy are opposed, fearing that it will exacerbate divisions within the Church. French bishops have openly argued against it. The Pope's old office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith last spring, privately advised against the motu proprio, the Vatican official said. Still, Benedict does not appear swayed. The professor Pope may be happy to have a conversation on doctrine, but he knows he always has the last word.

This point may very well be true. A restoration of wider access to the Traditional Latin Mass would bring joy to many Catholics who have a special devotion to it, but it could result in parishes having two congregations. However, we also must remember that the one universal Catholic Church already does have a large number of rites, usings various languages, gestures, symbols, etc. I also can sympathize with traditional Catholics who long for the traditional Latin Mass. It does possess great beauty, reverence, and an otherworldy sense of transcendence. It requires that the laity see their prayer in the Mass as more contemplative than active. The notion of the Mass as the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary is more clear. Imagine the reaction of an Byzatine rite Catholic if the Church one day just transformed the Mass that he knew and loved, changed the language, the order, the symbolism and gestures. He would be outraged and saddened. Why do expect less of Latin rite Catholics. Still, I see the beauty of the reformed liturgy of Vatican II (if it is practiced with reverence, according to the liturgical norms, and in continuity with past liturgical tradition). What would happen if we had wider access to two different Masses. Hhhhhmmmm, it is an interesting question, and not one that I would have to negotiate. I, for one, am glad that Pope Benedict does have "the last word" on this one.
__________________________
Interestingly, after I wrote this... I discovered that the blog New Liturgical Movement also commented on this article by Time. They also have some interesting photos of where the Post-Conciliar liturgical reform was implemented in rather absurd ways. Check it out:
http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com
/2007/04/hermeneutic-of-
rupture-great-threat-of.html

Do You Trust the Church?: A Conversation on Women's Ordination and the Role of the Magisterium (Part 5.2)

NOTE: This is part 5.2 of a series on the question of whether the Catholic Church has the authority to ordain women priests. This continued conversation is between myself and Luis Guttierez, Phd., editor of a journal entitled Solidarity, Sustainability, and Non-Violence. The initial post concerning this matter was from February 14 and can be found in the archives for February or by clicking on the following link:
http://swallowedscroll.blogspot.com/2007/02/do-you-trust-church-conversation-on.html . Part 4 was posted on Feb 19. You may also click on the label at the end of this post entitled “Women Priests?” to access these and other related posts. I will again place Luis’ remarks in red, and my responses in blue. I paraphrase previous remarks and statements for the sake of greater brevity. If you would like to see the full context of previous quotations see the earlier posts.

Has the Church definitively settled the matter?; what authority and dignity do women have in the eyes of the Church?

"Church authority as depicted in Scripture is hierarchical—however distasteful and scandalous that may seem to us modern Westerners."--CPDT

Regarding whether the matter of the male-only priesthood has been defined definitively by the Church, Luis wrote:

“No council has defined the male-only priesthood as a dogma of the faith
either .... so it is an open issue .... but there is a gag order at the
moment not to discuss it .... why do we need a gag order to avoid facing
an open issue?”

I replied:

Again, these are your words: “the male-only priesthood… is an open issue.” In contrast, these are the Pope’s words: “…at the present time in some places it [the male-only priesthood] is nonetheless considered still open to debate … Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance …this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”

You make a legalistic distinction between a “dogma of the faith” and something pertaining to the faith that is to be definitively held. I think this is a matter of splitting hairs. Clearly, this is a matter pertaining to the faith (central to the nature of the Church) that you do not definitively hold to.

Where is it written that the faithful are only to give their assent to defined dogmas and not to the other expressions of the Magisterium as it pronounces on faith and morals? The Vatican II Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium is instructive regarding the obligation of the faithful with regards to magisterial teaching on matters of faith and morals:

“This loyal submission of will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.” (LG#25)

By the way, the doctrine is formulated in an infallible manner (even if this is debatable, it is at least as strong as a teaching can be asserted given the language!) and is a doctrine that has been taught in the recent past with frequency (this was not the first time this doctrine was taught).

The Catholic Church has argued that slavery and the slave trade is immoral… although they did not define it as a “dogma of the faith”. If I seek to be an obedient and faithful Catholic am I free, in good conscience, to deny that teaching? (Some dissidents make the same argument about the clear teaching against artificial contraception: “it was not infallibly defined as a dogma so I can discard it!”)

Still, some theologians argue that Pope John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis WAS infact exercising papal infallibility in this pronouncement:

See the following articles:
[Jeff Mirus: http://www.ewtn.com/library/
ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT and Fr. Peter Pilsner on the same issue:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/
ISSUES/PILSORD.TXT ]

I will quote from Jeff Mirus’ article:

“The operative paragraph in this short document is the final substantive paragraph, immediately preceding the Apostolic Blessing: ‘Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.’

Let us compare this with Vatican I's definition concerning the exercise of papal infallibility: ‘the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable because of their nature, but not because of the agreement of the Church.’ [First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ]

THE FOUR TESTS OF INFALLIBILIY: There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be
(1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church. ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ not only passes all four tests, but it is manifest that the Pope deliberately phrased the teaching to ensure that this would be obvious.”

In his analysis, Mirus draws the connections:
"1.) intending to teach: “I declare…” It is obvious from the context that he is teaching something, he is clarifying a part of the faith which some think is still subject to change. His objective in teaching is that "all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance”.

2.) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority: “in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32)” (the chief scriptural passage cited in the Official Relatio on Infallibility presented by Bishop Vincent Gasser to the bishops at I Vatican Council).

3.) a matter of faith or morals: “regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself”
4.) to be held by the universal Church: "this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.” Incidentally, dogmas are to be held by the universal church… with mere disciplines (such as priestly celibacy) is not always to be held by all (e.g. – Eastern rite priests, some Anglican/Lutheran converts in the West). "

Some might claim that the Pope is not using a precise formula for an infallible dogmatic pronouncement (or that it is not in the right form of papal document). Mirus notes:

“Once we understand that it is the Pope and not the document that is infallible, a subtle shift in our perception occurs. Instead of looking for a particular linguistic formula in the text, and fearing that something may not be infallible if the "proper" formula is absent, we look in the text for language which indicates the Pope's intention. Does the language clearly indicate, by whatever words, that the Pope intends to teach by virtue of his supreme authority on a matter of faith or morals in such a way that binds the whole Church? If so, the Pope is exercising his prerogative of infallibility, and what he teaches is irreformable.”

Two other paragraphs are illuminating:

“Third, dogma is not limited to a prescribed body of information already defined. Rather, any point in the general body of Christian doctrine may become dogma by being irreformably defined. The process by which a doctrine is stated so precisely and authoritatively that it becomes irreformable is the process by which a doctrine develops into a dogma; the clearest culmination of this process is a formal dogmatic definition. Fourth and finally, the definition of infallibility at Vatican I does not limit infallibility to those extraordinary cases in which the Holy Father states he is formally defining a new dogma. Whether or not he would call Ordinatio Sacerdotalis a dogmatic definition, the Pope has stated infallibly a doctrine that has always been known, taught and believed by the great body of Catholic faithful--namely that the Church has no authority to ordain women. He has, in other words, irreformably formulated a proper understanding of a limitation on the authority of the Church.”

I realize, Luis, that you believe the male-only priesthood is a discipline and not a doctrine (indeed a discipline that was outrageously elevated to the level of doctrine by Ordinatio Sacerdotalis). However, show me some statement from the Church’s Magisterium or 2,000 years of Tradition that explicitly refers to or defines the male-only priesthood as a discipline. What clues do you find in the historical record that this was a discipline?

-------------------
Regarding the question of whether the Church changed its teaching on slavery, Luis wrote:

“The slavery issue is certainly part of "faith and morals," and both go together.
One of the great debates in Europe after the discovery of America was whether
or not the native Indians had souls and could be baptized. I imagine something
similar may have happened by blacks. I look forward to you educating me further on this.”

I replied:

I have tried to demonstrate in my recent email to you [to be posted soon] that it is false to claim that the Catholic Church (in a magisterial document) positively taught that chattel slavery and the slave trade were morally acceptable. On the contrary, I cited over a half dozen papal documents that taught that slavery and the slave trade was immoral. I do not know who was involved in such debates about the humanity of native Americans… I do not doubt that they occurred… but the question is what the Catholic Church explicitly and positively taught through the Magisterium.

---------------------------
I questioned where Luis finds “the official position of the church was that women were sub-human”? (Does he have a papal document or canon from a council that states this?... something besides scattered speculative musings from theologians?) I also asked why he would say that the Church taught that women were sub-human given the fact that they baptized women from the very beginning, canonized and venerated women saints, supported and partnered with women religious in missionary endeavors, etc. Luis singled out the point about women being baptized and wrote:

Excellent question, which now we see as an obvious contradiction; again, it has more to do with resistance to having women in roles of religious authority, and very little to do with sacramental theology.

I replied:

How do you back this assertion up? The Church cites sacramental theology and the precedents of Scripture and Tradition in its explanation of the teaching. See above [post 5.1] for the argument that the ability to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders does not necessarily follow from baptism (any more than the necessity to marry follows from baptism).

------------------------------
Regarding the fact that women exercise tremendous authority and power in virtue of their holiness and their vocations which are essential to the mission of the Church, Luis wrote:

All the cases you mention retain religious authority 100% in male hands.
Influnce, yes; authority, no.

I replied:

Holy and influential women certainly do exercise tremendous moral authority (they have also historically held teaching positions—which is a form of authority). You seem to limit “religious authority” to juridical administrative authority and authority to teach (as bishops, and in councils, etc.). I would also note that a woman superior also exercises hierarchical “religious authority” in shepherding her order—which includes administration, legislation, and shaping the spirituality and apostolate of the order. Women sometimes serve as the chancellor of a diocese or on the marriage tribunal. Women have for some time now had important roles in the various curia offices.

You are right, however, women do not exercise another kind of hierarchical authority which is the jurisdiction of the pope, bishops, and pastors of the Church (authority exercised over an entire body of laity). This, I think, is the root of the problem. My question to you is: what if women were pastors, bishops, and popes? Wouldn’t these women teach the same things as have always been taught (by male bishops) as they would be guided by the Holy Spirit? Or, would women—by virtue of the fact that they are women—decide to teach other things? Would women teach something differently about the moral character assigned to homosexual acts? Would they teach that abortion or artificial contraception was morally acceptable? I know that you say these are not the issue at hand… but, when I skim through a list of organizations that support women’s ordinations, I see more than a few of them have an agenda that desires changes in current Church teachings.

What I believe is at root is a desire for the “democratic” model of Church authority: everyone is represented, everyone gets a chance to lobby for “their” preferred teaching. We see this in the Episcopal Church with its “house of deputies” (composed of laity and clergy) so as to give everyone a voice. This democratic vision of Church magisterium has led to many false teachings and the tearing down of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in my mind. Church authority as depicted in Scripture is hierarchical—however distasteful and scandalous that may seem to us modern Westerners. The argument for women’s ordination seems to be about power/gender politics, having a voice, and a “seat at the table.”

Do You Trust the Church?: A Conversation on Women's Ordination and the Role of the Magisterium (part 5.1)

NOTE: This is part 5 of a series on the question of whether the Catholic Church has the authority to ordain women priests. This continued conversation is between myself and Luis Guttierez, Phd., editor of a journal entitled Solidarity, Sustainability, and Non-Violence. The initial post concerning this matter was from February 14 and can be found in the archives for February or by clicking on the following link:
http://swallowedscroll.blogspot.com/2007/02/
do-you-trust-church-conversation-on.html .
Part 4 was posted on Feb 19. You may also click on the label at the end of this post entitled “Women Priests?” to access these and other related posts. I will again place Luis’ remarks in red, and my responses in blue. I paraphrase previous remarks and statements for the sake of greater brevity. If you would like to see the full context of previous quotations see the earlier posts.

Scripture and the Early Church; Does justification necessitate admittance to all sacraments?

I made the charge that Luis was overemphasizing the distinction between the scope of Jesus’ New Covenant in the pre-Resurrection and post-Resurrection periods (i.e. that before the Resurrection the covenant was offered to the Jews only, or to men only, etc.; after the Resurrection it was universal in scope). I also made the related point that he was overemphasizing Jesus’ “prudence” (in his alleged approval of slavery—which cannot be proved—in his alleged exclusion of the Gentiles—which is also not true). In response, Luis wrote:
He also anticipated opening the new covenant to women. Remember, women
were not allowed in the synagogue. All exclusions came to an end when the … [unfinished sentence?]

Likewise, he was anticipating that it would be proclaimed to women, and
in fact accepted the ministrations of women. For example:

Mark 14:6 -- "Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her?
She has done a beautiful thing to me.

John 12:7 -- "Leave her alone," Jesus replied. " It was intended that
she should save this perfume for the day of my burial.

Sounds like a sacramental anointing to me ....

In response, I wrote:

Of course, Jesus opened the new covenant to women from the very beginning (starting with the disciple par excellence—the Blessed Virgin Mary). I do not know what point you were driving at when you mention women not being allowed in the synagogue, or what event brought an end to all exclusions (I do not see where your original sentence continues on, it just broke off).

However, women were certainly considered to have a share in the covenants of the Old Testament—even if they were not circumcised. You cannot tell me that Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Rahab the harlot, Ruth, Judith, Esther, Hannah, did not have a share in the covenant of the people of Israel (even those that were of Gentile origin were part of the salvific history of Israel… as you can see from Matthew’s genealogy [Mt 1:5]). Also, you make a presumption that if anyone is allowed entrance into the new covenant they also by necessity be allowed to function in the very specific role of sacramental ministry. I would like you offer some kind of proof and convince me of this point. I do not see the necessary connection. If God ordained that only a certain cross-section of his people would exercise this function, why should I second guess Him?

These verses that you cite above do not strike me as suggesting a sacramental anointing at all. According to the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (which can hardly be criticized for “papal fundamentalism”) states that John 12 and the parallel accounts in the other gospel “all agree that the woman’s action is preparation for Jesus’ burial”, and that the Greek term used is for “burial preparation” (this passage relates to his impending passion, death, and burial). This commentary makes no reference to this being the act of the anointing of the sick. It would not make any sense for Jesus to receive a sacrament from anybody, seeing as He is God. The sacrament of anointing of the sick addresses the sick and forgives sins—which, Jesus would not need. In fact, the only place in Scripture that we have any indication of sacramental anointing of the sick is in James 5:13-15 where the presbyters of the church are the required ministers (and do we have any biblical evidence of female presbyters?).

These verses do speak of the central role of female disciples—but they deal more with right devotion and do not address sacramental administration or church authority.

On the contrary, I believe that these verses are another example of how those who are in favor of women’s ordination stretch and strangle biblical texts to support their arguments (an odd phenomenon for those who repeatedly charge the Magisterium and 2,000 years of Sacred Tradition with biblical fundamentalism and literalist interpretation).

In addition, you did not respond to: “Jesus also tolerated slavery and mostly kept a distance from Gentiles. Prudence does not necessarily imply prejudice.”

--------
I made the point that, even though the first apostles were Jewish men (before the Resurrection), the Church soon saw Gentile bishops (Timothy and Titus, for example), and yet, we did not at the same time see the institution of women priests or bishops [I used the term “priestesses”]. This would be strange if it was Christ’s intention (post-resurrection, of course) to extend sacramental ministry and governing authority to women. Despite countless examples of exemplary women disciples (Mary Magdalene, Martha/Mary, etc.), it was a man who was chosen as the apostle to replace Judas.

Luis wrote:

The term "female priestess" is derogatory. This conversation is about
female Christian priests, not female pagan priestesses.

I replied:

I did use the term “priestess” which was not intended to be derogatory. The Council of Nicea mentions “deaconesses” and the Council of Laodicea mentions “presbyteresses” and “presidentesses”. Even WomenPriests own website quotes Pliny’s Latin term which translates as “deaconesses?” So, I used the term because I heard/read it being used before… I did not mean to offend anyone by the term. Of course, I do not believe that “female Christian priests” exist in the true sense of having been validly sacramentally ordained by a true Church authority (as a Catholic, of course, I do not count the Episcopal church or any other Protestant body), but I will use the term out of respect for those who so designate themselves.

--------------
I asked if this overlooking of a woman to be appointed the successor bishop was just misogyny on the part of the early Church.

Luis replied:

“Could be, or could be that the possibility never crossed their minds;
and if it did, they had a rationalization not to do it, i.e., they
didn't want people to confuse the Christian priesthood with the pagan
priesthood. The entire cultural fabric was saturated with misogyny.”

In response, I wrote:

Why would it not have crossed their minds to ordain women priests and bishops? Jesus clearly associated closely with women (and much to the initial shock of the apostles--Jn 4). The WomenPriest website, itself, mentions that St. Paul makes many references to women assisting in the service of evangelization [www.womenpriests.org/deacons/deac_his.asp ] (though, they fail to point out that these roles of service include teaching, and evangelization—roles that are not exclusive to the ordained clergy and do not require sacramental ordination to exercise—more reckless Biblical eisegesis!).

It is true, women were a central part of the life and mission of Jesus and the early Church (as is evident throughout the New Testament—Mt 27:55, etc.). Why would it not occur to the early Christians to consider women for ordination? The liturgy and life of the early Church brought them suspicion from the Romans who mistook their “Agape / love feasts” as orgies and their Eucharist as cannibalism. They were mocked for their belief in the Resurrection. Why would they be concerned with being confused with a pagan religion when the world already saw them as freaks (both from the Jews on one extreme, and Pagan Rome on the other)? Again, how was the Holy Spirit absolutely strangled and buried by misogyny in the Church for 2,000 years? In my mind, that would mean that the gates of Hell definitely prevailed against the Church.

---------------
Continuing on the theme of Jesus’ radical challenge of the Jewish religious establishment and belief, I wrote: “…Only Jewish men were circumcised,... and yet the Church baptized women as well as men (why not ordain both if that was God's plan).” In response, Luis wrote:

Yes, the church baptized women, making them icons of Christ ... now the
church must recognize that, if women can be baptized, they can also be
ordained to become icons of Christ in sacramental ministry. The mental
barrier here is to have women in roles of religious authority.

In response, I wrote:

Baptized women are icons of Christ in the general sense that they image Christ to the world. The baptized are sacraments in the “small s”, general sense (just was we say that the Church is a “sacrament” of salvation to the world). However, the matter chosen for the sacraments was very specific (wheat bread in the West, oil, wine of a certain alcohol content, water, etc.). If Jesus Christ (a man) instituted men as icons of Christ in the very specific function of sacramental ministry I do not see any reason to object to His reasoning.

The argument would be that men more fittingly image Christ when the sacraments (such as the Eucharist-Last Supper) are being administered. This position, like the theology of the body, would see that sexual identity is not just a matter of “genital plumbing” but actually has a deeper theological significance. In the same manner, it would be odd to see a man depict the Virgin Mary, because her feminine identity was instrumental (not accidental) to her central role in salvation history (as one who was perfectly receptive to the gift/will of God).

Of course, we have no scriptural evidence of why Jesus chose only men to be apostles… we only know that he did. We engage in theology (such as the theology of the body or sacramental theology) in order to try to explain what we know from faith (Scripture tells us that Jesus only chose male apostles, and that the apostles only chose male successors—so, in the sense of a Scriptural fact, I say it is a matter of faith). On the other hand, speculative conjectures that Jesus was blinded by misogyny, cultural barriers, or a gutless false prudence are contradicted by the Scriptures themselves (the fact that Jesus is God and not merely “a product of his times”).

Of course, If you say that it was not His intention to ordain only men, then we go back to the illogical conclusion that the apostles and the early Church suppressed his teaching or were overwhelmed by cultural prejudice (see previous arguments). There is a smug assumption in all of this that our time and culture knows best… that we are the enlightened generation that needs to correct the faults of previous generations. I just don’t buy it in this particular case. (I see it all as plagued by modernist gender politics.)

You work from an assumption that to be redeemed and justified (through baptism) necessarily opens one up to the specific sacrament of holy orders and sacramental ministry. This is an assumption for which I would like more theological proof.

It is true that baptism grants all the lay faithful a share in priesthood of Christ, and makes them icons (small i) of Christ. This is not as novel a revolution as some think. In the Old Testament, there was also a priesthood of the faithful and a parallel (and more exclusive) liturgical priesthood:

“If you hearken to my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my special possession, dearer to me than all other people, though all the earth is mine. You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. That is what you must tell the Israelites” (Exodus 19:5-6).

God tells the Israelite people, through Moses, that they are to be consecrated… a people set apart in order to worship and serve the Lord. And yet, it was the Levites who were chosen to be the liturgical priests who offered the sacrifices. Of course, the “lay” Israelites also participated in the sacrifices by supplying the material sacrificed in atonement for their sin (just as the lay faithful are called to a full, active participation in the sacrifice of the Mass—through their PRAYER). As you know, those who tried to usurp the liturgical priesthood because they felt they had a “right” to it (liturgical ministry = object of a power grab?) were punished accordingly (Numbers 16; Jude 1:11). Does the fact that only the Levites were chosen to function as liturgical priests diminish the dignity of the other Israelites?

Once again, we sometimes assume that Jesus Christ brought about a complete break with the Old Testament beliefs and institutions. Again, I think that this card is overplayed. Many use the tearing of the sanctuary veil (Mt 27:51) as proof that the Christian dispensation now erases all distinctions/barriers (between Gentiles/Jews, Men/Women, Us/God). Some Protestants, of course, point to this verse as the eradication of all sacramental priest/mediators because Jesus, alone is the mediator before God. Of course, Jesus’ priesthood is different from the Levitical priesthood because it is a perfect mediation… a perfect sacrifice. This does not, however, mean that Jesus did not incorporate certain sacramental ministers into the mystery of his one priesthood.

Where is the proof that redemption and justification requires participation in the specific sacrament of holy orders? The Catechism calls the sacraments of holy orders as sacraments in service of communion. It is not the case that one needs to receive all 7 sacraments in order to be fully human or fully redeemed or fully sanctified. What is your argument that one necessarily needs to be allowed the sacrament of holy orders in order to have full Christian dignity? That is nonsense. If I were to be ordained a priest and did not receive the sacrament of holy matrimony that does not make me any less of a Christian. Certainly, I would miss out on the specific graces associated with the powerful sacrament of Holy Matrimony… but that would not be required for me to fulfill my vocation. What about a Christian brother who receives neither Holy Orders nor Holy Matrimony? Does he lack the full Christian dignity while living the consecrated life? The two central sacraments for the Christian are baptism (entrance in the Church, eternal life, sanctifying grace, configuration to Christ, priesthood of all believers, etc.) and the Eucharist (“source and summit of the Faith”). Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders are two parallel sacraments that serve only to help the baptized live out the glorious mission that came with their baptism (to know, love and worship God and to sanctify the world).

[see above for more posts in this part 5 of the conversation]

Do You Trust the Church?: A Conversation on Women's Ordination and the Role of the Magisterium (part 4)

NOTE: This is part 4 of a series on the question of whether the Catholic Church has the authority to ordain women priests. This continued conversation is between myself and Luis Guttierez, Phd., editor of a journal entitled Solidarity, Sustainability, and Non-Violence. Please scroll down to see the earlier posts.

To avoid the confusion of layers, I will paraphrase my points that Luis is responding to, rather than include his quotations of my last letter (which can be read in the previous post-post #3).

I wrote that Scripture gives no evidence of neither Jesus nor the apostles after him giving women a role of ecclesial governance and sacramental ministry. To assert that this was due to the prejudice of the times one would have to assert that the prejudice began with Jesus Christ....

To this Luis replied:

"This discussion requires thinking *before* and *after* the resurrection. Before the resurrection, the earthly mission of Jesus was to the people of Israel, not to all the nations. Accordingly, all the apostles were males, and all the apostles were Jews. Jessu also tolerated slavery and mostly kept a distance from gentiles. Prudence does not necessarily imply prejudice.
After the resurrection, the mission of the church is to all nations. Mary Magdalene is the first witmess of the resurrection, "apostola apostolorum." The church started baptizing gentiles, and soon there were gentile apostles."

To this, I respond:

"JESUS’ VIEW TOWARD GENTILES, POST-RESURRECTION CHANGE?:
Certainly, the earthly ministry of Jesus began with the people of Israel. The prophets foretold that the messiah would come to the Jews first. Israel was then to be the light that would attract all nations to worship God on mount Zion (Isaiah 2:1-5; Psalm 22:28; Psalm 67:3-4; etc. etc.). Of course Jesus anticipated opening up the new covenant with the Gentiles after first proclaiming it to the Jews (many of whom he knew would reject his message—especially the leaders).

As you well know the Gospels detail important interactions between Jesus and Gentiles: "the Greeks" who search him out (Jn 12:20); Jesus first insisted that he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but healed the Syrophoenician woman for her faith as she acknowledged the dependence of even Gentiles who, like dogs, "under the table eat the children’s scraps" (Mk 7:28; cf. the Canaanite woman from the Tyre/Sidon regions Mt 15:21-28); in response to the Centurion (a Gentile) who appealed for the cure of his servant, Jesus said, "in no one in Israel have I found such faith" (Mt 8:10); when Jesus was rejected at Nazareth he referred to how Elijah came to a widow in Sidon (not Israel) to miraculously open the sky and end the famine…and that though there were many lepers in Israel, it was Naaman the Syrian who obeyed Elisha’s command and received healing (Lk 4:16-30).

I understand that in Mt 28:19 Jesus clearly commissioned the disciples to make disciples of all nations. However, I think you might be making too sharp of a distinction between Jesus before the resurrection and after. Clearly, during his entire ministry he was anticipating the fact that Gospel would be proclaimed to the Gentiles as well as the Jews (indeed, it already was being preached and accepted by Gentiles as these verses make clear).

Yes, at first "all the apostles were males, and all the apostles were Jews." What happened once the church began to have Gentile bishops (Timothy and Titus, for example)… do we then see clear evidence in the New Testament epistles of female priestesses? Do we such evidence in the writings of the early Church fathers. No. And why not, I wonder. Female priestesses were already known of in Pagan religions of the time. What would have been the big deal for Jesus or the early Christian community to reveal the fact that women were also called to exercise this function? Mary Magdalene was called "the apostle to the apostles" by certain Church fathers. This, however, would not seem to mean Apostle in the specific sense, but rather apostle in the small "a" sense of one who was sent on mission to proclaim the good news. Indeed, if Mary Magdalene was an Apostle in the sense of one who was commissioned by Christ to govern his Church and have a share in his ministerial priesthood why was SHE not chosen as the successor to Judas. Why would the apostles pass up such an illustrious original disciple… one of such high regard as Mary Magdalene… in order to choose the unknown Matthias (Acts 1:26). That would not make any sense. Oh right, I forgot, the apostles were blinded by their own misogyny.

You also speak of the prudence of Jesus. Certainly, he exhibited prudence. However, you should not take that argument too far either. Do not forget that Jesus constantly clashed with the Jews: foretelling the destruction of the temple, violating the Law, working on the Sabbath, consorting with unclean people, identifying himself with God (the successive I AM’s of John’s Gospel). Are you telling me that he was holding back on the female priestess thing because he did not want to ruffle any feathers? Surely he would have foreseen the rejection of the Christians from the institutional assembly of the Jews. Only Jewish men were circumcised,... and yet the Church baptized women as well as men (why not ordain both if that was God's plan). Why did St. Paul, or any of the authors of the New Testament reveal this teaching about women priestesses (because at this time the Church was independent of the synagogue and there would no longer be any concern about the reaction by the Jewish leaders)? Yes it was the council of Jerusalem that defined teaching about the circumcision and dietary requirements. But notice, it was a COUNCIL of Church leaders. No such council has ever met to discern or validate women priests. The authorities of the Church have done nothing but denounce the practice.

Luis wrote:

"Then it took the church 1700 years or so to come to a mind that slavery is morally wrong. Until very recently (as recently as 1988?), the official position of the church was that women were sub-human, and therefore could not possibly be ordained."

I respond:

"SLAVERY:
The slavery issue is a complicated question of history, one which I will have to do more research on. I will write more on that in another email. In brief, however, you are comparing a very fundamental liturgical question: the question of sacramental matter (who can be ordained) with the specific application of general moral principles to an institution that has taken MANY forms throughout history. Comparing these two things is apples and oranges. Indeed, my research shows that the Magisterium did speak out against barbaric chattel slavery on many occasions. And I have not discovered a Church doctrine that extolled forms of slavery that offended human dignity. But more on that later, because it is an interesting question.

"WOMEN AS SUB-HUMAN?:
Where do you find 'the official position of the church was that women were sub-human'? If the Church considered women "sub-human" then why were women baptized (last I checked, sacraments were always restricted to humans)?… We don’t confirm insects and we don’t give Communion to dogs. Why would the Church venerate female martyrs from the very earliest centuries if they considered them sub-humans? Why celebrate their feast days? Why would the Church canonize women saints or declare two of them doctors of the Church? Why were orders of women religious founded (in many cases by men)? Why would bishops appoint abbesses who wielded great prominence and power in the Medieval period? Why would we see great partnerships in mission and obvious mutual respect in such pairs as St. Frances of Assisi and St. Clare, St. Francis De Sales and St. Jane De Chantall, etc, St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila? Why did St. Catherine of Sienna possess the moral authority to command the Pope to leave Avignon, France and return to his rightful place in Rome? I am not denying that there has not been individuals with male chauvinism in the Church. But the view of the Church as a whole has always acknowledged the dignity of women in theory and practice.

Luis wrote:

"The Lord instituted the sacraments and entrusted them to the church, not for the church to perpetuate ignorance and prejudice that he could not handle in his mission to the Jews, but to administer them according to the signs of the times, for the glory of God and the good of souls..."

I respond:

"Again, I do not understand. What was the "ignorance and prejudice that [Jesus] could not handle in his mission to the Jews"? I believe in the divinity of Christ and do not think that he was limited in his mission by the prejudices of the times. As I said, Jesus’ teachings already flipped the Jewish world of his times upside down. It does not seem to me that he would be worried about some Jewish male chauvinists. As I said before, Jesus already acknowledged the dignity of women in a way that was unprecedented (the woman at the well—Jn 4:9, 27; the woman caught in adultery—Jn 8:3-11; the pardon of the sinful woman—Lk 7:36-50 ). Why would he have truncated his Gospel by leaving out an important point about who can receive this sacrament that is SO essential to the make-up and functioning of the Church?

"Other than that, you just repeat the assertion that the Church "perpetuates ignorance and prejudice." This is an assertion for which you provide no proof. Really, it is just your opinion. You point to unenlightened views about women by some fathers and Thomas Aquinas. Such personal misconceptions about the female nature can coexist along side the valid theological principles whereby only men are ordained (because only men can sacramentally image Christ who was a man). If Thomas Aquinas makes an unenlightened comment about women, this does not mean that prejudice is at the root of the millennium of Sacred Tradition that preceded him and, more importantly, began with Jesus Christ and the apostles.

"By the way, who interprets the "sign of the times" in order to reverse the centuries old administration of the sacraments?... Do YOU interpret the sign of the times? Does Sr. Joan Chittester?... Does womenpriests.org do this interpretation... Call to Action... FutureChurch? If you asked me, I would disagree with your interpretation of the sign of the times… and so would a lot of Catholic women I know. But what I think does not matter in this regard. Once again, I’ll let the Magisterium interpret the sign of the times on this one. In a similar vein, some people think that the sign of times requires that we change who can administer the sacrament of holy matrimony to one another… saying that its high time that 2 men be allowed to do this… or two women. … If such people want to leave the Church over this, I guess I understand, but why would they hold their breath waiting for the Church to start whirling chaotically in the winds of change?"

In response to my assertion that he would have to say that the Church immediately betrayed the intention of Jesus (to have female sacramental ministers)... and that I trust the Tradition of the Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit that would not be wrong on a matter of such great importance...

Luis wrote:

"What about [the Church for] 1700 years approving the morality of slavery?"

(slavery discussion to follow later…)

In response to the fact that the same Council that refuted the Arian heresy and contributed the Creed that we recite at Mass also denounced female ordination (as did the Council of Laodicea in 360)...

Luis wrote:

"This reflects their understanding as of 361 AD, is not a definition of revealed truth, and does not preclude further development."

I respond:

"Further development" [of doctrine] is not the same thing as an outright about-face reversal, a 180 degree change. Doctrinal development is not when the Church says ‘the Church has no authority to ordain women' and then later, 'the Church has the authority to ordain women'. I am not sure that I understand what you mean by this distinction of revealed truth. My point is that the question of who can receive a sacrament is a question of vital importance… a question that would have to have been definitively settled at the very beginning. We do not debate whether unbaptized men can be ordained? We do not debate (yet) whether Holy Matrimony can be between 3 people. These questions go to the heart of the definition of the sacraments, themselves.

"Therefore, when a Church council REPEATEDLY answers a question concerning an issue, then I accept the teaching (especially when it is defined as definitive in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and again in Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1995 Ad Dubium). Please re-read those two passages and tell me that the Church is leaving this question open for "further development.":

'Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance
… this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.'

I guess no matter what Pope John Paul II tries to do, he will never be able to remove ALL doubt about this matter. Some people will persist in doubt.

In response to my point that I do not feel the need to pick and choose between which canons of the Council of Nicea that I should accept... and that the Fathers of the Church also spoke against women's ordination...

Luis wrote:
"They also wrote that women are "the gates of hell" and what about Thomas Aquinas ... have you read what he thought about women?"

In response to my point that women have had countless roles of important leadership of service within the Church throughout history (even if not administrative roles in the hierarchy--a very small part of the entire Church's make-up)...

"This is not the point. The point is that the signs of the times seem to indicate that the ordination of women is needed, here and now, not to satify any "post-modern feminist agenda," but for the glory of God and
the good of souls. Incidentally, men are the ones who might benefit the most from the sacramental ministry of women priests (Carl Jung, etc.)"

I respond:

Once again… who gives you the authority to definitively interpret the "signs of the times" (that is such a vague concept… very open to manipulation in order to support ANY agenda)… or what makes for "the glory of God and the good of souls"? I am curious, why would men benefit the most from the sacramental ministry of women priests? I am not well read on Carl Jung’s psychology. However, I doubt that I would be convinced by such arguments. Is it a question of men being nurtured by women ministers?... or mothered by them? I do not go to the sacraments for primarily emotional motivations. I go to the sacraments to receive grace via an encounter with the person of Jesus Christ who acts through his ministers. I do not get terribly concerned with personal characteristics or talents of individual ministers.

Regarding the theology of the body and the differences between men and women (specifically, the ability to sacramentally image Jesus Christ--who was a man), ....

Luis wrote:

"Thank God, men and women are different but, except at the genital level, they are not mutually exclusive. Their complementarity is also not black and white. There is man in woman, and there is woman in man."

I respond:

"I do not know exactly what you mean by this. Men and women can share traits, but I do not have "woman" in me."

Regarding arguments from the theology of the Body...

Luis wrote:

"The theology of the body is, among other things, liturgical theology. How can we have good liturgy if the language of the body around the altar is exclusively male?"

I respond:

"Here is one explanation how. According to Genevieve Kineke, author of The Authentic Catholic Womanhood:
'The Theology of the Body shows us that there is a nuptial backdrop to the universe and that life is created spiritually and physically when the bride and bridegroom unite in a complete gift of self. Thus, the priest (bridegroom, an icon of The Bridegroom Christ) is espoused to Holy Mother Church (the Spotless Bride), offering the semina [seed] (word of God) in order that she nourish her children. If there is a woman priest, there will be a same-sex union, which will be sterile.' [this is from a private correspondence]

"Now, I am aware that you will disagree with her theology of the body. You would probably craft your own whereby God is bride/Mother and the Church is the bridegroom… but her theological perspective is based on Ephesians 5."

Regarding the question of whether the Church has spoke definitively about a male-only priesthood...

Luis wrote:

"There has been no *definition* that the male-only priesthood is revealed truth and therefore a matter of faith. Ordinatio sacerdotalis uses the "literalist" method to interpret certain biblical texts in isolation from the entire Bible. I am sure you know the difference between "literal" and "literalist."

I respond:

"I can only continue to point you (once again) to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the 1995 Ad Dubium from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Pope John Paul lI wrote OS because of a certain misconception that was popular at the time—namely that "the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force." If something is not a question of discipline (which can be changed), then it is a question of doctrine (which does not change, although it can develop… and once again, a complete about-face reversal is not doctrinal development). Disciplinary issues are not "to be held definitively" nor are they to be understood to belong to the deposit of the faith. Nor do they pertain to the Church's divine consititution itself (see below).

"Pope John Paul further called the question of who can be ordained 'a matter of great importance, A MATTER WHICH PERTAINS TO THE CHURCH’S DIVINE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.' He concludes by saying that 'this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.'

More matter-of-fact, Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith asked whether the Church’s teaching in this regard "is to be held definitively", and "IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS BELONGING TO THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH." The answer: yes (in the affirmative). The reason: it is founded on the written Word of God, from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, and set forth by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (LG 25, 2). "The Roman Pontiff…has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as BELONGING TO THE DEPOSIT OF THE FAITH.'

Earlier, Pope Paul VI indicated also that this was a question of the Church’s divine constitution: "The real reason [for admitting only men to Holy Orders] is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology—thereafter always followed by the Church's Tradition—Christ established things in this way" (Inter Insigniores).

Literal vs. literalist interpretation of Scripture in OS (yes, I have studied theology so I know the distinction)? That can be a matter of debate, I suppose, but in the end, who cares? It was the authoritative interpretation… it was the binding interpretation whether or not you agree with it. Certainly many modern exegetes might disagree,... but then again some of then are so drunk with an exclusive use of the historical critical method that they also deny the historical validity of the Resurrection and the miracles of Christ. Why trust them over the magisterium and Tradition? Incidentally, people who argue in favor of women's ordination twist Scripture--"there is not male and female" (Gal 3:28), for example, concerns justification and does not state that there are NO differences between men and women of any relevance to theological anthropology and the sacraments. Women received the common priesthood of the faithful... but the people of Israel also had a "common priesthood" of the people and a parrallel ministerial priesthood.

Regarding what I call the ambiguities inherent in the moral teachings of (what I would call) modernist churches (such as the Episcopal church in US)...

Luis wrote:

"There are ambiguities and there are ambiguities. When you conflate matters of faith (such as the Assumption of Mary) with matters which are not of the faith (such as the male-only priesthood), it is reasonable to
expect that many people are going to be utterly confused."

I reply:

"I am not saying that the dogma of the Assumption is on the same theological level as that of the male-only priesthood. They do share many things in common, however. For example, they both belong "to the deposit of faith." Of both we can always say that "this teaching requires definitive assent." Both are founded on the Word of God, Sacred Tradition, and the teaching of the Magisterium. I am just comparing the dogma of the Assumption with what I quote regarding the male-only priesthood above. Where is the confusion on my part? Rather, the confusion comes when people who disagree with Church teaching tell others that the teaching can change. On the contrary, modernist Christian denominations conflate the teachings of Scripture (especially on the moral issues regarding marriage and sexuality) with the perspective of contemporary culture."

Luis wrote:

"Roman Catholic bishops are forced to sign an 'oath of loyalty' that, in fact, conflates what we believe with 'certainty of faith' with other practices and doctrines which we do not believe with certainty of faith.
This confusing requirement, augmented by smoke screens of creeping infallibility and the ban to discuss the ordination of women, smell fishy to me."

I respond:

"Once again, I am not a professional theologian. All I can point to is the fact that the male-only priesthood is assigned to the deposit of faith and that we are to grant this teaching 'definitive assent.' Clearly you distrust Roman Catholic bishops, the Pope and the entire Magisterium. You seem suspicious of the Church for finally putting an end to this question. Why? This is what we have a magisterium for… to end debates over doctrinal matters and give clear direction. Why does this 'smell fishy' to you? Are you convinced that there is a misogynistic conspiracy to high jack the Holy Spirit and the Church?"

Luis wrote:

"In your current position as 'director of faith formation,' are you also required to sign the oath of loyalty?"

"No. The cover letter of my resume did, however, state that I strive to be orthodox, that is obedient to the teachings Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. I presume that the pastor who hired me took my word for it. However, would I sign an oath of fidelity (I do not know what you mean by "oath of loyalty" though perhaps they amount to the same thing) if asked? Certainly. Why not? In fact, I would frame my copy and hang it in my office. The way you posed this question sounds like you think be faithful to the Magisterium is something to be embarrassed about. I am not. I do not think obstinate disobedience and persistence in theological error is a mark of maturity (in contrast to Curran’s recent autobiography).

"I trust the Church because I trust the inspired word of God and 2,000 years of acquired wisdom over my own faulty opinions. My job as director of religious education (my official title is modern day church jargon) is a humble one. I organize and oversee the religious education programs at 4 parishes in our cluster. I also do not make my catechists sign an oath of fidelity. I told them explicitly, however, that they are to only teach what the Catholic church teaches. Unless I hear otherwise, I assume that they do this. That is just common sense—parents who drop their kids off for religious education should be taught the Catholic faith, and not speculation or what some people wished the Church taught. That is truth in advertising.
Respectfully,
Chris"

We are starting to repeat ourselves, so I do not know if any more can be said... (but I have a hard time giving up the last word) :)