Thursday, September 27, 2007

Mother Theresa's spiritual darkness: faith is about TRUST,... not certitude and clarity


This is an interesting article about the current talk of Mother Theresa's spiritual darkness as revealed in a new publication of letters to her spiritual director entitled Come Be My Light.
[ Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light ]

Jesuit Fr. John Kavanaugh is a gifted theologian (for an example of his work see entitled
Following Christ in a Consumer Society:
The Spirituality of Cultural Resistance

_______________________________________
Godforsakenness
'Finding one's heart's desire'
By
John F. Kavanaugh OCTOBER 1, 2007 AMERICA
[http://www.americamagazine.org/
content/article.cfm?article_id=10235


There has been much written about Mother Teresa of Calcutta these days. Not only has the 10th anniversary of her death been observed; depths of her interior life have been inspected as well. The publication of her letters to spiritual directors in Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, edited by Brian Kolodiejchuk, M.C., has revealed that the founder of the Missionaries of Charity herself lived in profound spiritual darkness for nearly 50 years.

The public revelation of Mother Teresa’s interior crisis (much of the documentation appeared on the Internet news site zenit.org in 2002, while the cause for her canonization was moving forward) has struck some as a cruel betrayal of her desire not to have her letters published. Others were shaken by what seemed to be her loss of faith or by God’s harshness with her. Some have linked her experience with the harrowing purifications of high mystical prayer.

The most voluble response has likely been that of Christopher Hitchens. An often brilliant polemicist and eminently readable essayist, Hitchens is perhaps the most prominent of nonbelievers to have recently published an anti-theist manifesto. His best-seller is titled God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. But over a decade ago he wrote The Missionary Position, a searing and often mean indictment of Mother Teresa, whom he dubbed the "Ghoul of Calcutta."

There is a puzzling zeal in Hitchens’s fascination with Mother Teresa and his seizure of every media opportunity to disparage her. He opined in the Time magazine cover story (a remarkably balanced article) that she was like a die-hard, disillusioned Communist carrying on even though things were falling apart. On television news shows he attributed her perseverance to the fact that "advisors egged her on because she was a great marketing tool."
Apparently the only good thing he can see in her life is what he thinks was her loss of faith. Thus, from his two-page opinion piece in Newsweek one gets the sense that Hitchens has discovered a strange sympathy for "this troubled and miserable lady." But first he must convince himself that she has really lost her faith. Thus he moves from his first paragraph’s guarded "all but lost her own faith" and "for all practical purposes ceased to believe," to his ringing conclusive indictment of "a blind faith in which she herself had long ceased to believe."

Hitchens gave a much more accurate description of Mother Teresa’s crisis during a three-hour interview on C-Span’s "Book TV." Correcting himself after asserting her loss of faith he said, "If not a loss of faith, a great loss of certainty." Precisely.
The problem (and Hitchens could not have suspected it) is that Mother Teresa never had certainty. At least that’s what she told me.

In Calcutta during December 1975 and for a few days in the following March, I was doing the "long experiment of humble ministry" that Jesuits undertake during their last year of formation. On those days when I celebrated the Eucharist at the Missionaries of Charity motherhouse and worked at the House of the Dying, I had a number of conversations with Mother Teresa.

Two of them still inhabit my life. Our first talk concerned my worry that I should not go back to the comfort and riches of being a university professor in the United States. She told me to go back. "There is far greater poverty there. The greatest poverty is the absence of love."
Much more puzzling was a comment she made shortly before I left Calcutta. I had asked her to pray for me. She said "for what?" "For clarity," I pled. And she immediately said no, she would not pray for that. I complained that she seemed always to have clarity and certitude. "I’ve never had clarity and certitude," she said. "I only have trust. I’ll pray that you trust."
So Hitchens is correct on at least one count. Mother Teresa was living with a "great loss of certainty"—about herself, about her relationship to Christ, about her fate, about her very God. The feeling of not having faith is quite different from not having faith. Otherwise it would not be so harrowing to the believer, who cries out with nothing but trust.

It would be good if all of us, believer and nonbeliever alike, could learn once and for all that whatever faith is, it is not a crutch. Sometimes in faith, you have nothing to lean on. Nor is the "feeling" or consolation of faith something we can conjure up on our own. If anyone had such powers of conjuring it would be Mother Teresa. So much for feel-good religion—that "opiate of the masses." Morphine is much more effective.

The real story, the deepest subtext, in Mother Teresa’s "dark night" is not that God was purifying her. God was actually giving her her heart’s desire.

Every Missionaries of Charity community I have visited has a large crucifix with the words "I thirst" over it. It is that broken man on the cross that Mother Teresa most wanted to identify with, the same Jesus she could see in the most bereft and seemingly unloved of her brothers and sisters on earth. In one of her desperate cries to Jesus she wrote, "Lord my God, who am I that you should forsake me?" Is it possible that she could not see that her very words were the same as those uttered by the man on the cross she so longed to be with? Could she not realize that she had finally found union with the man who cried, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Perhaps it is best that she did not appreciate the intensity with which her prayers were answered. Freed from her darkness, she would have left him to his cross. Such can be the paradox of finding one’s heart’s desire.

John F. Kavanaugh, S.J., is a professor of philosophy at St. Louis University in St. Louis, Mo.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Video of Youth For Truth Rally against Planned Parenthood in Aurora, IL


Blogger Fighting Irish Thomas has a wonderful video of the the "Youth for Truth" rally that took place in Aurora, IL. to combat the opening of the new Planned Parenthood "abortion fortress."

Check out the video and related news links on his site:



Also,

Read this post from a Yahoo discussion board:
The new Planned Parenthood building in Aurora, IL has been dubbed the "Abortion Fortress" [Photo above by EJS]
______________________________________
Take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NLY8h9SXMk

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/08/
prolife_protest.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytZvxkFpVso

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnA3aGEeOcs

Get involved:

www.familiesagainstplannedparenthood.org

http://www.prolifeaction.org/

Join the 40-Day Prayer Vigil For the 40 days before Planned Parenthood's scheduled opening on September 18, Families Against Planned Parenthood are holding a Prayer Vigil at the site (map). Rain or shine, day or night, hot or cold, we will be there praying that Planned Parenthood never opens. Please joins us, and sign up for an hour of prayer.


Participate in a Special Event FRIDAY, September 7, 2007: Candelight Vigil—9:15-10 p.m. The Most Reverend Peter Sartain, Bishop of the Diocese of Joliet, has called for a day of prayer and fasting to for the intention of keeping Planned Parenthood out of our community, September 7. Many parishes will be holding prayer services that evening. All the faithful are invited to gather at the Vigil site from 9:15-10:00 p.m. for a Candelight Vigil to close the day of prayer and fasting.
_______________________________________

Remember, those of you who do not live anywhere near the Chicagoland area, you can still observe 9/7 as a day of prayer and fasting for this situation in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Christ. Prayer knows no boundaries.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, August 30, 2007

More Updates on Planned Parenthood's Invasion of Aurora, IL


Planned Parenthood is trying to set up shop (would be the largest abortion clinic in the U.S.) in the large Chicago suburb of Aurora, IL. A large number of people attended the city council meeting last night to stand up for life.
A friend of mine is currently a youth minister in Dekalb, IL but has spent the last few years serving as a youth minister at Holy Angels parish in Aurora. The following is her first hand account of the city council meeting that occurred last night:
So, ironically last night I didn't even speak. I showed up with another youth minister friend of mine. ... We got into the City Council room it was packed to the point that people were out in the hallway.
In the 26 years that my mother has been blessed with my existence, I have never ever been to a City Council meeting. So at first I thought wow, this is a lot of people, I wonder if this many people always show up? The first hour was all boring business stuff that you wonder why anyone really even has to care or vote about those things, but whatever. Then one of the alderman made a call to finish the meeting @ 9PM no matter what and that the first hour should only be Aurora residents. Another alderman, thankfully one from the Holy Angels district spoke up and said that they were there for the people and because of the people and it was unconstitutional to not allow people from other cities speak. Well they had a vote and we won by 1 alderman vote.
I stayed until midnight, but the meeting did not finish until 1:30AM. For the entire time that I was there, only 2 Pro Planned Parenthood representatives presented. Of course they were from NOW, one of the 3 most hated organizations on my list along with NARAL and PP. They were old biddies who were totally not in touch with reality. They claimed that we were all outsiders and extremists. Kinda funny, cause all night I only heard 3 people who were not from Aurora speak. After the one lady's stupid comments, every Pro-Lifer got up and said well, based on the fact that I have lived here in Aurora for 20, 50, or whatever amount of years I don't consider myself an outsider and as someone who has true concern for the protection of my family I don't consider myself a fanatic. The speakers were lawyers, teachers, moms, nurses, doctors. They represented multiple ethnicities, ages, and religions. However, they all stood together for the cause of Life. There were retired military veterans that got up and talked about their promise to protect every American citizen and they believed that to be born and unborn.
The one doctor I remember the most was a woman of African American descent and she was an OBGYN and she talked about all the women she continually treats from the after affects of abortions. She gave a powerful testament with graphic details of how she has found leftover baby body parts in women, and how women come in and will never be able to have children again. All kinds of sad stuff. But man she was Charismatic and a tough cookie who knew her stuff.
There were pastors and priests from every denomination there talking about how many women they had counseled. There were teenagers and young people who were awesome in their speeches. Honestly, I have to say it was truly the closest I have had to a spiritual experience without being in a real church. It was awesome.
And everyone of the speakers got up and pointed out the district they were from and the alderman and reminded them come election time they would remember how they voted on this issue. There were speakers who even challenged the council with asking them what kind of legacy would they be leaving if this is allowed.
Plus, another irony, the city's phrase all over the banners is, "Character counts". So everyone brought that phrase up and reminded the council about the lack of character Planned Parenthood had in coming into the community.
My name had still not been announced, which by midnight I decided I really just have to go home, because I do have work in the morning. Hence, I never spoke but really all the topics had been covered and it was just important to be a body who was present to prove that it wasn't just something a small group of people felt affected by. Regardless, all went well and it was a really cool experience.
I know that the mayor has agreed to an investigation, but hopefully he will do the independent investigation as we asked for, make the findings public, suspend PP from opening until the investigation is finished, and if they got into the community illegally revoke their license to be there. That is what the hope is, but for now all we can do is keep praying and hoping. I will keep you posted as I know more details. Thanks as always for all your prayers and support of me and for the cause of Life!
Love,Katie
__________________________________

Here is some news coverage:




Pro-life Blogger:







Rockford Observer (Catholic diocesan paper)-



LifeSite News

____________________________________
Other recent articles pertaining to abortion:
Vatican newspaper calls abortion "assasination":
Vatican Talks of Eugenics Culture After Abortion of Wrong Twin:

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, July 21, 2007

U.K. Schoolgirl Loses Court Case Over Chastity Ring


Good for her, standing up for chastity and the true and beautiful purpose of sexual love:




This is evangelization, folks.


Other articles and comments to follow...

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Do You Trust the Church?: A Conversation on Women's Ordination and the Role of the Magisterium (part 5.5)

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.

What is a Catholic required to believe?....

"There is no precondition that a magisterial teaching needs to meet any member of the laity’s standards for rationality or logic in order to demand assent. Nor is it required that a teaching result from consultation with the entire church."--CPDT

Regarding the force of the language in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and whether it has settled the matter definitively, Luis wrote:

This means you and I will never see it in our lifetime, but this is not a definition that provides "certainty of faith." Take a look at the dogma of the assumption or any other dogma. It must state that this document is a *definition* that such as such is *revealed truth.* Usually, these definitions are published as "apostolic constitutions" (the highest level of papal teaching), not as "apostolic letters" (the lowest level of papal teaching). This is not simply a matter of terminology. Remember that the Second Vatican Council deliberately refrained from proclaiming any new dogma. Can you find any "apostolic constitution" among the council documents" Can you find any new "definition" in any of the council texts?

I replied:
Even if he was not exercising papal infallibility (see above argument), the Pope may not have felt the need to issue an apostolic constitution because he stated that this conclusion about the Church’s authority to ordain women already “has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” (Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Ad Dubium).

In any case, are we to adhere definitively to a church teaching only if it is formally defined as a dogma in an apostolic constitution?


Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium are “dogmatic constitutions” in that they make statements regarding dogmatic matters. Would it be in the spirit of one in communion with the Church to refute and reject those teaching just because they are not apostolic constitutions or council canons?

The Second Vatican Council did not deliberately proclaim a new dogma, does that mean I do not have to adhere to its nuanced teaching on religious liberty (the Declaration on Religious Liberty)? Was that teaching just some unimportant pastoral statement? (In deed, it was such an important teaching that it was one of the predominant reasons for the schism of Archbishop Lefevbre [note: it was the only document that he voted against in the whole Council!]).

Yes, I am aware that Pius XII issued Munificentissimus Deus (defining the Assumption) as an apostolic constitution (as did Pius IX with Ineffabilis Deus--defining the Immaculate Conception).

I am looking at a list of some of the apostolic constitutions that Pope John Paul II issued: Universi Dominici Gregis: On the Vacancy of the Apostolic See and the Election of the Roman Pontiff; Ex Corde Ecclesiae (On Catholic Universities) and Sapientia Christiana (On Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties) both concern Catholic education; Pastor Bonus deals with the curia organization; Sacrae Disciplinae Leges was issued for the promulgation of the new Code of Canon Law. Do these apostolic constitutions have any new dogmas in them?

On the contrary, it is in his encyclicals that Pope John Paul II dealt with more dogmatic matters: the Eucharist and the Church, Faith and Reason, Mariology (Redemptoris Mater), Christology (redemptor hominis), the Holy Spirit, God’s mercy and Confession, social teaching (re labor, etc.), missionary activity of the Church, the dignity of human life (Evangelium Vitae), and Ecumenism.

It is true that many apostolic letters also, like Apostolic Constitutions, deal with non-dogmatic issues or issues of significance to very specific localities (nations, etc.). Browsing through JPII’s apostolic letters we see that he uses them for the beginnings of thematic years (the Marian year, Jubilee year 2000, year of Eucharist), to commemorate anniversaries of Councils, key documents (Sacrosanctum Concilium/Orientalium Dignitas), Church movements, saints, world events, etc (often reasserting previous Church teaching—some of which is dogmatic in nature). He addresses current events (Lebanon in ’89). He promulgates the Catechism; writes of the proclamation of a doctor of the Church (Therese), etc.

Some apostolic letters address the dignity of women, anniversaries of bedrock ecumenical councils, the Christian meaning of human suffering, etc.

I do not know exactly what circumstances lead the Pope to use an apostolic letter, apostolic constitution, or an encyclical—since all of these forms are used for a variety of topics and for a variety of teaching purposes. I have always thought that perhaps letters are issued for teaching that is not as lengthy or detailed (as compared with encyclicals—which are also geared to the entire Church). Of course, apostolic letters can also be addressed to the entire church as well (the letter on the Rosary [announcing new mysteries], Dies Domini, the letters on the thematic years, etc.). Are the apostolic letters used more often to deal with current issues of important in the Church? Dies Domini (On the Keeping of the Lord’s Day) was a response to a current neglect of a traditional moral dogma. Misericordia Dei (on certain aspects of the celebration of the sacrament of penance) was issued to revitalize the practice of the sacrament.

Perhaps JPII wrote on the authority of the church to ordain men only [also an issue addressed to the entire Church] in the form of an apostolic letter because: the treatment did not need to be lengthy enough for an encyclical,… and because the letter was issued in response to a recent controversy. I do not know for sure, that is just a guess.

What I do know is that, regardless of which forms of teaching the pope customarily uses to expound on doctrinal matters, he is not obligated to restrict his teaching function (or even his infallible teaching function) to one form (such as an apostolic constitution).

The dogmatic definition of papal infallibility does not specify the vehicle (type of writing, or a specific formula for definition) through which the Pope teaches ex cathedra. The dogma only states: “when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

Neither does Lumen Gentium mention any specific vehicles for the exercise of ex cathedra teaching (LG#25). The Pope has no such restrictions: he can teach infallibly in any means he choses—he only needs to meet the specifications stated from Vatican I above.

--------------------------------------------------
Regarding what Magisterial teachings require the assent of the faithful, Luis wrote:

Unless I have certainty of faith, I can and should doubt, especially
regarding any pronouncements which are irrational and imposed by force
without consultation with the entire church. Are you old enough to
remember the worldwide consultation, down to the level of people in the
pews, preceding the dogma of the assumption? I was a boy (born 1942),
but I still remember, in my parish in Cuba (San Juan de Letrán, Vedado,
Havana, Cuba) the priests urging everyone to sign under either "yes" or
"no" a petition as to whether or not the dogma should be defined.
Believe me, when Pope Pius XII went into St Peter's basilica on 1
November 1950, there was *no doubt" as to what he intended to do.

I replied:

There is no precondition that a magisterial teaching needs to meet any member of the laity’s standards for rationality or logic in order to demand assent. Nor is it required that a teaching result from consultation with the entire church. Just because a teaching is an exercise of God-given authority does not mean that it is “imposed by force.” You are free to believe or not… but being in communion with the Church requires believing—that is the nature of any authority (whether we are talking about the authority of Scripture, of the Magisterium, etc.). Regarding doctrines taught through papal infallibility, Lumen Gentium states: “his [the pope’s] definitions are …irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church…they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal” (LG#25).

I was born in 1977, so I did not live through this extraordinary time. I have, however, read Pius XII’s definition so I am familiar with the process (Munificentissimus Deus #8-11). This was a case where many of the laity petitioned their bishops and the Holy See to proclaim this dogma. Unlike the case with the divine maternity (Ephesus) the pronouncement was not made by the Holy See as a result of some controversy about Mary, the Church, or the Last Things, etc. …it was a traditional belief and there was a genuine groundswell of demand that the teaching be explicitly defined.

Of course you know that it is not true that a pope necessarily MUST consult with the bishops or the laity before exercising papal infallibility or teaching at any level. Bishops are infallible when they teach in an ecumenical council—and they usually do not consult the lay faithful in such cases.

Besides, the Assumption is a completely different matter because there was a record of belief in the Assumption stretching back centuries (Tradition—writings of the Fathers)… there was a practical display of the Church’s belief in Tradition (a liturgical feast day in both the East and the West)… and the dogma can be supported through Scripture. None of these can be said of women priests.

In addition, the Pope was asking the bishops if they themselves and their people believed this. Actually, he asked whether the bishops “judged that the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin could be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith” and he added “do you, with your clergy and people, desire it?." In order to assess the matter, your bishop “polled” the parishes. That is fine, however, I do not think he had to do that… he could have just gauged what his people believed/desired and told the Pope. I wouldn’t interpret what your bishop did as some kind of democratic vote by the people as to whether they thought this dogma should be proclaimed.

-------------------------------------------
Regarding who interprets the sign of the times, Luis wrote:

No, the entire church (everybody, everywhere) must be involved in the
discernment process.

I replied:

I agree, but see my comments above [post 5.3?] regarding the slippery topic of determining what the sense of the faithful is. Also, the entire Church needs to step up its knowledge of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and be able to sufficiently think with the mind of Christ and not just the mind of secular society (seeing everything as politics).
By the way, the entire church (everybody, everywhere) would include places like Africa, which would not be too open to the idea of women’s ordination. I am not sure if this discernment process would ever transcend stand-offs and come to any conclusions (once again, see the Anglican Communion where you now have some primates who will not share communion with other primates, and bishops of the Episcopal Church in America saying that if conservative members do not like their policies, then they should be the ones to leave and vice versa). Yes, the entire Church is needed, but at the end of the day, I also want a Pope.

-----------------------------------------

Labels: , , ,

Do You Trust the Church: A Conversation on Women's Ordination and the Role of the Magisterium (part 5.4)

NOTE: This is part 5.4 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. 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.

What does the Sense of the Faithful have to say about this? ... and can there be a true development of doctrine at work?

"You write of the sense of the faithful as if the laity are monolithic on this issue...and united in their opposition with 'the Vatican.' "--CPDT

Regarding the question of whether the Church could whirl chaotically in the wind [given the debated "signs of the times"], Luis wrote:

Don't hold your breath. It is hard for the Vatican and 1.2 billion people to whirl chaotically in the winds of change, even if they wanted to.

I replied:
Actually, we all could whirl chaotically if we, as some of our fellow Christian communities are now doing, reversed some of the core teachings found in the deposit of faith (for 2,000 years) as found in Tradition and Scripture. Indeed, I do not think we will whirl chaotically and abandon the Faith as it has been defended, refined, and handed down. That is why I thank God that the teaching Magisterium gives us this guidance… often in the face of serious pressure from society to change its teachings to better suit what they determine to be “the sign of the times” (I could see some Enlightenment Catholics saying that the sign of the times deemed that it was high time to reinterpret the Gospel accounts of the miracles and even Jesus’ resurrection, the Arians would have suggested that the sign of the times was that Jesus was not fully divine; the Donatists would have said that the sign of the times dictated that Christians who were baptized by bishops who later apostacized, needed to be re-baptized, etc.)… certainly the sign of the times points to the need to reassess our teaching on human cloning… after all, what do we know about the definition of human life, we are "only babies who cannot yet eat steak"?

On who interprets the sign of the times, Luis wrote:

Regarding who interprets the signs of the times, it is the church [of] Christ, the *entire* church (i.e., the sense of the faithful), not only the Vatican.

I replied:
I agree with you there—it is the entire Church that interprets the sign of the times. However, when you bring up the sensus fidei (sense of the faithful) you sure bring up an ambiguous concept. How does Vatican II's Lumen Gentium define the sense of the faithful:

“The holy People of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office… The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when ‘FROM THE BISHOPS to the last of the faithful’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, GUIDED BY THE SACRED TEACHING AUTHORITY (MAGISTERIUM), AND OBEYING IT, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13). … The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.”

I must admit, I do not fully understand what the sensus fidei means. I have long wanted to make a study of it. Does it just mean that the laity participate in the infallibility of the Church through passive acceptance of the teaching of the Magisterium (surely, it must mean more than that)? But how do we consider the sense of the faithful when they are detached from the Magisterium through either ignorance of its teachings or outright hostility and close-minded defiance and rebellion (for example, was the Protestant Reformation with all of its accompanying heresies an expression of the sensus fidei given all the laity that followed Luther)?

And yet, people appeal to the sensus fidei in the issue of artificial contraception as well… 80% of Catholics, they say, disagree with Church teaching. And yet, after personally reading Humanae Vitae and the other recent papal documents on marriage and the family, after observing the effect of contraception on society, marriage, and the family…I am so certain that this 80% are DEAD WRONG! (and it required Pope Paul to stand his ground and courageously say NO to daunting wave of opinion that said he should reverse Church teaching). Many younger men and women of my generation do not have the same cultural baggage that prevented the previous generation from actually reading Humanae Vitae and studying the issue. Many of the them are coming to this same conclusion as I did (look how popular the theology of the body is becoming among a core of young practicing catholics).

Of course, how do we determine what IS the sense of the faithful? Do we rely on polls? Do we count those Catholics who are not practicing their faith, or who have never even read Humanae Vitae, or who have never even attempted to understand WHY the Church teaches a certain doctrine, or who have never tried to live in accordance with that teaching (actually relying on grace)? I think that if we left those people out of the equation, then the sense of the faithful would read a little differently on that issue.


Again, I do not mean to get off topic, but Humanae Vitae is a classic example of how difficult it is to determine and rely on the vague notion of the sense of the faithful. In the column on the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae the author (not sure, perhaps it was you?) stated that “the encyclical was an authoritarian (and futile) exercise in telling married couples when to use (and when not to use) the ‘pill’ and other methods of artificial birth control. It thereby invaded the sacred space of personal conscience for single and married people alike.” If this is a conclusion of the sense of the faithful, then I cannot trust it. I disagree—this is NOT a violation of people’s consciences. The Church has not only the authority but the obligation to teach and clarify to the flock the meaning of the sacred nuptial act in the context of Holy Matrimony—that is part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ! As a lay person, I deserve to hear the truth about that (especially when trends in society threaten the truth). Much like the sensus fidei, “conscience” is also sometimes appealed to in such a way that it is divorced from authentic formation in the teaching of the Church (the Catechism warns about this false notion of an autonomy of conscience—see Catechism of the Catholic Church #1792).

Indeed, I believe that the Church does not have the authority to admit women to holy orders… and I have many friends (male and female) who share the same belief… are we not to be included in the sense of the faithful? You write of the sense of the faithful as if the laity are monolithic on this issue...and united in their opposition with “the Vatican.” Why do you presume that the sense of the faithful necessarily contradicts what the Pope and bishops teach on this matter? Note, also, that the sensus fidei as defined in Lumen Gentium presumes that the faithful are “guided by the sacred teaching authority, and obeying it”… if people begin with the presumption that the magisterium is misinterpreting Sacred Scripture, and that Sacred Tradition is utterly unreliable on this issue (because it is marred by misogyny), …indeed, when there is an openly hostile and adversarial attitude taken toward the magisterium (“just the teaching of old men at the Vatican”) then how can we say that the sense of the faithful is truly at work.

So, if I appeal more often to the teachings of the bishops and the Holy See (the “Vatican” designates the political unit of the city state) than to the sense of the faithful it is because the latter is far more easily defined (synods convene, documents are published, etc.). I do not mean to deny the role of the faithful in determining the sign of the times… but it is a thorny question, because the faithful are not monolithic… and how do we know what they believe?... as I said, polls are insufficient and superficial. And, like I said, I am part of the faithful as well, and I dispute your interpretation of the sign of the times.

Luis continued:
Also, may I suggest we keep this dialogue focused on the ordination of women. The church has a long way to go in understanding all aspects of human sexuality -- but we know that a man is a man, a woman is a woman, there is man in woman, there is woman in man, and both men and women are human .... and Jesus was *human* (John 1:14).

I replied:
Well, actually, you are the one who brought up the question of what the Church taught about slavery… and also, when the Church first defined that women share equal dignity as men. These are big and complicated historical questions, but I tried to engage those issues when they related to the main topic at hand.

However, I do not think that the Church’s teachings on human sexuality are entirely off the topic at all. As I said [see post 5.3], if I follow your line of argument that men and women have only a superficial physical/genital difference, then this would affect other moral teachings. It would follow, for example, that two men should be able to be joined in Holy Matrimony, … sexual reassignment surgeries would also be morally justifiable. After all, the sex that God created an individual with would be entirely arbitrary, just a matter of physical plumbing… it would have no real significance.

In addition, if you look at the major organizations that are proponents of women’s ordination, many of them also have a parallel agenda that argues in favor of redefining the moral character of homosexual acts and homosexual unions, artificial contraception, and sometimes even “women’s choice” in the procuring of an abortion (the following is an article on a recent demonstration of support for abortion workers by clergy from the United Methodist and the United Church of Christ:

http://www.raidersnewsnetwork.com/articles/
columbiatribune-com-2007-Mar-20070303
Feat001-asp
)

I personally suspect that this is because their understanding of the Christian faith is heavily influence by what I would term radical feminism. I do not mean to harp on these moral issues, I just bring them up because they are the clearest evidence of how some Christians are trying to change traditional Christian teaching in order to better accord with modern social opinions. There is an authentic Christian feminism out there, but if it results in promoting things that harm and kill women (like abortion or contraception), then that ain’t it.

Once again, your assumption about the sacrament of holy orders is that, if someone was redeemed by Jesus Christ then they necessarily should be able to image him in the specific sacramental administration of the sacraments—WHY? Once again, Holy Orders does not confer justification, it does not give any necessary grace in the way that baptism does. If God ordained that only men receive the sacrament, then that is His divine logic… even though we might not totally know why (remember, we are just babies after all). The Church just says that it has not the authority to do otherwise then what is found in the deposit of faith (via Scripture and Tradition).

Church Councils have made specific definitions of the divine and human nature of Christ and of the divine and human wills of Christ. Should we suspect a future Council to decided that matter of whether Christ had “woman in him” because Jung’s psychology suggests that it would be the case? Again, I need an explanation of what is meant by his theory…. Is it backed up by serious metaphysics, or is it fad psychology?

-----------------------------------------

I wrote that if Jesus taught that women should be able to receive Holy Orders, and that that was the will of God (which he would have presumably communicated to the apostles at some point), then the apostles and succeeding bishops would have betrayed Jesus (for 2000 years) by not continuing this teaching. Luis wrote in reply:

Perhaps betrayal is the wrong word, because it sounds judgemental. It
is more like the situation Jesus anticipates in Jn 16:12-14.

I don't see why -- 2000 years for us is like 2 seconds for the Holy
Spirit, who must be patient because sin and prejudice make our minds
obtuse to most treasures already contained in the deposit of faith.

I replied:

I think that the presumption that the apostles and succeeding bishops suppressed the truth because of their own chauvinism is already judgmental. Once again, I think that applying
John 16—that the Spirit will lead the Church into all truth—to this issue is illogical. 2,000 years may be like 2 seconds for the Holy Spirit, but it would still be the case that the Holy Spirit allowed one of the 7 sacraments to denied to half of the Church’s population for 2,000 years.

The Church wrestled over other issues concerning the sacraments—such as what age baptism and confirmation should be administered, who should administer Confirmation, when Holy Communion should first be received, the structure of the Eucharistic liturgy, Holy Matrimony legislation, etc. But, never did it question the sex of those who should receive Holy Orders.

I would say that if Jesus clearly taught that women should not be excluded from Holy Orders, and the apostles and succeeding bishops received that teaching (orally, at least), but then allowed themselves to ignore it because of prejudice… then that would qualify as a very serious betrayal. If it was a teaching that Jesus made clear to the apostles, and they suppressed it… that is more than John 16 can account for. That would be more like the gates of hell overcoming the Church. Not only that, but the entire body of Eastern Orthodox churches—despite their differences in theology and culture—also managed to suppress this truth!

------------------------------------------
I stated the fact that Church councils explicitly deny the existence of women deacons and priests [Councils of Nicea—325 and Laodicea—360, which use the terms”deaconesses”, “presbyteress” and “priestesses”]. To this Luis wrote:

Again, the use of the terms "presbyteress" and "priestesses" indicates
that their understanding of Christian women priests was nonexistent.

I reply:

Precisely. How could they have an understanding of women priests when they do not exist. If an “understanding of women priests” means women who were validly ordained as deacons or priests then they do understand this hypothetical notion. It is just that they reject the notion. That canon from Nicea states: "Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity." So, they mention the existence of women deacons—but make clear that they are not deacons in the sense of ordained sacramental ministers (clergy). On the contrary, they are members of the laity. So, both Councils seem to understand the idea of ordained women clergy… but they reject the possibility.

------------------------------------------
Regarding how the admittance of women to Holy Orders could be an organic and authentic development of the Church's doctrine on the sacrament (I argued that it could NOT be), Luis wrote:

By "further development" I mean coming to a mind that the genital
plumbing of Jesus is not normative for ordination to the diaconate,
priesthood, or episcopate. What is normative is that he became human,
not that he became male. We simply have to get over the traditional
phallocentrism that most religions share. This is not a 180 degree
change. It is simply to keep going along the straight and narrow path,
shedding both new and old distortions of the faith.

I replied:
It is a 180 degree change in Church teaching to say that "the Church has no authority"… and then that "the Church has the authority…" OR "the male sex is an important part of imaging Christ in the sacrament of Holy Orders" and then "the male sex is not an important part…"
It is strange for a religion so steeped in phallocentrism to give its highest veneration (hyperdulia) to a woman saint (the Blessed Virgin Mary). It is strange for a religion so steeped in phallocentrism to entrust the teaching of its young males to the teaching authority of so many female religious sisters. The Catholic Church is not exactly the Taliban.

Labels: , , ,

Do You Trust the Church?: A Cnoversation on Women's Ordination and the Role of the Magisterium (part 5.3)

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.

Does the Church's teaching that women possess full human dignity stretch back only to the 1980's?

"The issue of the dignity of women is addressed precisely because recent trends in society had called this into question."--CPDT

Luis claimed that the Church has only recently come to the conclusion that women were not sub-human. I made the point that the Church has always affirmed the dignity of women—most clearly in the life of the Church itself (the fact that women were immediately baptized; that women saints and martyrs were immediately venerated, that women played important roles in the religious life, etc….).

To this Luis wrote:

Untrue. The first official acknowledgement was "Mulieres dignitatem" (1988). And again, it was about acknowledging the dignity of women as human persons, while still making clear that their dignity does not include the dignity of the ministerial priesthood.

To this I replied:

I have only previously skimmed portions of John Paul II’s 1988 apostolic letter “Mulieres Dignitatem”
[
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/
apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988
_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html
]

...So I read some more. You tell me Mulieris Dignitatem included the Church’s first declaration of the dignity of women. Once again, I am no historical theologian, but just off the bat I would say that your facts are wrong. The first two paragraphs detail recent discussions of women’s dignity—including the documents of Vatican II, and the works of Pope John XXIII and Paul VI (do you contend that these citations do NOT teach that women have human dignity in the eyes of the Church?):

"1. THE DIGNITY AND THE VOCATION OF WOMEN - a subject of constant human and Christian reflection - have gained exceptional prominence in recent years. This can be seen, for example, in the statements of the Church's Magisterium present in various documents of the Second Vatican Council, which declares in its Closing Message: "The hour is coming, in fact has come, when the vocation of women is being acknowledged in its fullness, the hour in which women acquire in the world an influence, an effect and a power never hitherto achieved. That is why, at his moment when the human race is undergoing so deep a transformation, women imbued with a spirit of the Gospel can do so much to aid humanity in not falling".1 This Message sums up what had already been expressed in the Council's teaching, specifically in the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes [49] and in the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity Apostolicam Actuositatem.3

Similar thinking had already been put forth in the period before the Council, as can be seen in a number of Pope Pius XII's Discourses 4 and in the Encyclical Pacem in Terris of Pope John XXIII.5 After the Second Vatican Council, my predecessor Paul VI showed the relevance of this "sign of the times", when he conferred the title "Doctor of the Church" upon Saint Teresa of Jesus and Saint Catherine of Siena,6 and likewise when, at the request of the 1971 Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, he set up a special Commission for the study of contemporary problems concerning the "effective promotion of the dignity and the responsibility of women".7 In one of his Discourses Paul VI said: "Within Christianity, more than in any other religion, and since its very beginning, women have had a special dignity, of which the New Testament shows us many important aspects...; it is evident that women are meant to form part of the living and working structure of Christianity in so prominent a manner that perhaps not all their potentialities have yet been made clear".8"


I would add that the fact that women have equal dignity and rights is affirmed in Paul VI’s 1971 apostolic letter Octogesima Adveniens (#13), Pope John Paul II’s 1981 encyclical Laborem Exercens (#19), and Pope John Paul II’s 1981 Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (#22-23). The first two documents were written as reflections on the Church’s social teachings with a specific focus on human labor rights. Familiaris Consortio, of course, was written to address the role of the Christian family. The topic of the dignity of women came up in these documents, even though this was not the central point of the documents nor the primary reason for their being written. The issue of the dignity of women is addressed precisely because recent trends in society had called this into question (by exploiting women in the work force, and the rise of both a male chauvinism and a radical feminism that could not balance woman’s right to participation in public life with her central role in the family). Even Mulieres Dignitatem, itself, was written in the wake of a synod of bishops and in light of a recent Marian year. Of course, I also believe that it was written in response to the modern errors of radical feminism.

With just a little more research, I was able to scare up some other references to the dignity of women:

Papal Directives for the Woman of Today: Allocution of Pope Pius XII to the Congress of the International Union of Catholic Women's Leagues, Rome, Italy, September 11, 1947 [
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/
Pius12/P12WOMAN.HTM
]

“Catholic women and girls, formerly you would have thought only of worthily playing your sacred and fruitful role in the management of a wholesome, strong, and radiant home; or you would have consecrated your life to the service of God in the composure of the cloister or in apostolic and charitable works. Beautiful ideals, where woman, in her proper place, and from her proper place, exercises quietly a powerful influence. But now you appear abroad, you enter the arena to take part in the battle…


…Towards the center converge all the rays of activity of woman in her social and political life, an activity of which the object is above all else, to protect the dignity of the daughter, of the wife, of the mother; to preserve the home, the family, the child in their primordial order; to safeguard the rights of the family, and make all efforts bear toward the safekeeping of the child under the guardianship of his parents. … We had pointed out the menacing dangers, and We then referred especially to what might be called the secularization, the materialization, the enslavement of woman, all the attacks directed against her dignity and rights as a person and as a Christian.”


Read Pope Pius XII’s 1954 encyclical on consecrated virginity Sacra Virginitatis
[
http://www.papalencyclicals.net
/Pius12/P12SACRA.HTM
] and tell me that he is not assuming the Christian dignity of women.

In paragraph #69 he argues that women have a right to leave their families and pursue the consecrated life despite parental opposition (sounds like a right accorded to someone with human dignity to me), he acknowledges the heroics of consecrated women who were facing current persecution, and he extols the virtues of the many canonized married women saints. Pargraph #70 is interesting, as well (showing the unique spiritual priesthood of consecrated virginity):

“Let parents consider what a great honor it is to see their son elevated to the priesthood, or their daughter consecrate her virginity to her Divine Spouse. In regard to consecrated virgins, the Bishop of Milan [Ambrose] writes, "You have heard, parents, that a virgin is a gift of God, the oblation of parents, the priesthood of chastity. The virgin is a mother's victim, by whose daily sacrifice divine anger is appeased." (70).”

(One does not need to exercise sacramental priesthood in order to have Christian dignity [see post 5.1].)

Pope Pius XI’s encyclical On Christian Marriage, Casti Connubbi states:


“Finally, but especially, the dignity and position of women in civil and domestic society is reinstated by the former [the indissolvability of marriage]; while by the latter [divorce] it is shamefully lowered and the danger is incurred "of their being considered outcasts, slaves of the lust of men."”
(see also paragraph 74 which argues that obedience towards husband is not unworthy of human dignity—thus presuming that women have human dignity).

Pope Pius XI’s 1926 encyclical Iniquis Afflictisque (On the Persecution of the Church in Mexico) [
http://www.papalencyclicals.net
/Pius11/P11INIQU.HTM
] does not explicitly mention the dignity of women, but considering how often it highlights the courageous role of women in the resistance (#16, 20, 27), I would safely say the document (like so many others) presumes that fact.

Pope Gregory XVI’s 1840 encyclical “On the Propagation of the Faith” Probe Nostis:

“Likewise a source of joy to the Catholic world, and a wonder to nonCatholics, are the many widespread sodalities of pious women. Under the rule of St. Vincent de Paul or in association with other approved Institutes, they are remarkable in their practice of the Christian virtues. They devote themselves entirely either to saving women from the way of perdition, or to training girls in religion, solid piety and the tasks suited to their state in life, or to relieving the dire want of their neighbors with every assistance. No natural weakness of their sex or fear of any danger holds them back.” (#9)

Despite that concluding expression that smacks of chauvinism today (though, women do have a comparative natural weakness with regard to physical strength), Gregory notes with pride how those women excelled in Christian virtue (which is the declaration that the Church makes every time it canonizes a woman saint)… and that this was even remarkable to non-Catholics. Once again, he considers the dignity of women as a given.

That was the result of me just doing a search with the term “women” on the papal encyclopedia website (www.papalencyclicals.net). To do justice to the historical question of magisterial pronouncements on the status of women would require more research than I have the time to do at this moment (though it is something I would like to continue).

Of course, throughout the history of the Church, wherever the Church affirmed the dignity of humankind made in God’s image—the Church implicitly affirmed the dignity of women (again, which is why women were baptized and viewed as man’s equal in the veneration of the saints).

As an aside: An interesting article that discusses the human errors (chauvinism) of theologians can be found at:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/
2006/0603fea4.asp
... the author makes a good point that, despite Thomas Aquinas’ flawed statement about the male sex being more noble, he also defended the dignity of women in a way that was unprecedented for its time.

You write that Mulieres Dignitatem teaches that woman’s “dignity does not include the dignity of the ministerial priesthood.” Once again, why is the exercise of the ministerial priesthood a prerequisite for Christian dignity? I would like a theological argument, and not a sociological argument (i.e. glass ceilings, etc.).
----------------------
I wrote that Jesus continually challenged cultural prejudices about women that were current in his day… why, then, would he hold back his teaching or truncate the Gospel by being hush about who can receive Holy Orders? In response, Luis wrote:

John 16:12-14 -- "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you."
Do you feed steak to a baby? No, because the baby will get an indigestion. The apostles were babies, Chris; and, 2000 years later, so are we.

I replied:
We are such babies that for 2,000 years God permitted women to be excluded from one of the 7 sacraments even though it was his will that they receive this sacrament.. merely because we couldn’t handle it? Again, I asked “what was the ‘ignorance and prejudice that [Jesus] could not handle in his mission to the Jews’ ”? You did not answer that question. Again, I think that this line of reasoning is illogical. Simply quoting John 16 can be applied to justify ANY reversal of doctrine (as is the current practices among some of the mainline Protestant denominations). This also comes back to the question of who defines what the sign of times dictates (and within that, whose voice speaks for the laity… for women, etc.?—when we know there is a diversity of opinion).
------------------------------------

I wrote that the personal misconceptions of individual theologians (such as Aquinas) concerning 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). To this, Luis replied:

The fact that Jesus was male is only of secondary importance. The important thing is that Jesus was a human being. At the incarnation, he assumed human nature, and this include to be either male or female; else, he would not have been "like us in all things but sin." What is not assumed is not redeemed ... so we are back at the contradiction that women can be baptized but cannot be ordained.

I replied:
Yes, he assumed a human nature… but he also took on the nature of a male, more specifically. It all comes down to the question of whether being male or female has any meaning in God’s eyes … or is it just, as you say, a matter of genital plumbing. When I read Genesis 1-2 (note: the man and the woman receive some different consequences for the Fall…they are different yet complementary—the man must cling to the woman), when I consider the female heroes of the Old Testament, when I read the writings of St. Paul about husbands and wives, when I read the theology of the body, it seems like the distinction between women and men is not arbitrary… that God intended different gifts to be found in men and women and that these gifts are to be complementary.

Your argument can also be taken to affirm holy matrimony between two men or two women (as some Christian denominations now do). Jesus assumed a human nature, and so redeemed all of human nature. However, it does not necessarily follow that all who are redeemed and justified must necessarily be able to receive the sacrament of holy orders.


Holy Orders empowers one to act in the person of Christ in the very specific sacramental administration of the sacraments… it does not grant any graces necessary for salvation (as baptism does). It does not restore sanctifying grace or result in the remittance of sin (as does Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick). Baptism is a more fundamental sacrament as it is necessary for salvation. Holy Orders, like Holy Matrimony, is not. It is for this reason that when I was studying for the priesthood for some years, the restriction of holy orders to unmarried men did not bother me. As great as holy matrimony is, my dignity as a human being and as a Christian does not require that I receive this sacrament. So, these two sacraments (baptism and holy orders) are not exactly on the same level. I see no necessary contradiction between being able to baptize women but nor ordain them.

--------------------------------

I wrote that misconceptions by individual theologians 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.

Luis replied:

Yes it does, because they thought that men and women were mutually complementary *and* mutually exclusive. Now we know better. We know that men and women are mutually exclusive (physically) only at the genital level, and perhaps some psychological traits which exhibit wide
variability. We also know (since Carl Jung) that there is man in woman and there is woman in man. This is not a theory or a hypothesis, but a scientific fact established by tons of clinical evidence.

I replied:
What is this clinical evidence?... because I do not even know what exactly is meant by the hyposthesis that “there is man in woman and woman in man”… you have obviously studied this question and I have not… so you have to explain to me precisely what is meant by this assertion. What is meant by the “man” that is in woman and vice versa… how is it explained? You only mentioned anima and animus to me… and if these are psychological or philosophical terms then I admit that I am unfamiliar and would need them explained. I still would hold to the fact that there are essential differences between men and women that complement one another, and that these differences have theological significance (since God created us this way). Does the fact that only women can cooperate with God in co-creation through the specific and intimate process of child birth have NO theological/anthropological meaning? In the same manner, does that biological fact diminish the dignity of men (are men mere inseminators)?

Labels: , , ,

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.”

Labels: , , , ,

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]

Labels: , , , ,