Members of Women’s Ordination Worldwide — that’s the name of a group promoting the “ordination” of women — have been in Rome this week, where rather than being shunned, as is appropriate, they were granted an audience with an official from the Vatican Secretariat of State. Hearing their appeal on behalf of some 150 women who have been “ordained” since 2002 (all of whom have been excommunicated), this unnamed official, according to The Tablet, “agreed to give a petition to the Pope calling for the excommunications to be lifted.”
I don’t know how many signatures this petition has garnered, but history has taught us that numbers alone don’t guarantee results. With nearly 900,000 signatures, including hundreds of Catholic prelates, the Filial Appeal to Pope Francis (and the heartfelt concerns of the faithful it represented) was summarily ignored.
But the little ladies at WOW got a concession beyond the promise of a hand-delivered grievance letter. The Tablet reports that “For the first time the group has been given official permission to hold a public demonstration in the gardens of Castel Sant’Angelo”. But not just on any day. Oh no. The protest took place today, “the day that the Pope celebrates a jubilee mass for priests in St Peter’s Square. Members of the women’s ordination group have also been given tickets to attend the Mass.”
The National Catholic Reporter ran a story recapping today’s events just a little while ago:
“We thought that the Jubilee for Priests was a perfect time to really give an offering and a celebration for all women called to priesthood,” said Kate McElwee, co-executive director of the Women’s Ordination Conference, the U.S.-based member of WOW. “We really wanted to have this as a celebration and a serious conversation of women in the church.”
[…]
Pope Francis’ recent announcement that he would create a commission to study the history of female deacons in the Catholic church — a hot button topic among members of the church — was also brought to the table Wednesday, June 1. Flannery offered only positive feedback to the announcement. If women eventually are ordained as deacons, he said, parishioners will no longer distinguish between males and females performing liturgies on the altar. “They wouldn’t see a significant difference. I think it would be a big step forward.”
Panelist Jamie Manson, who is NCR’s book editor and a columnist, offered a different perspective. “The establishment of women deacons, I think, runs the risk of being a compromise that ends up trapping women in a role in which they will continue to be subservient to men, particularly in service to priests,” she said.
Panelist Marinella Perroni, a professor of the New Testament at Pontifical University of St. Anselmo in Rome, offered three points during her introduction Wednesday, including the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council, which “brought to light the necessity of re-thinking the theology of Catholic ministry,” she said.
“I was always convinced that the church of Vatican II must come to de-clericalize ordained ministry, liberating it from the weight of sacrifice. Instead, the terror of a possible Protestantization of the Catholic church has blocked the reception of Vatican II and radicalized the theology of ministry as the stereotypical post-Tridentine ones,” Perroni said. “Personally, therefore, I would prefer that women would aspire to ordained ministry rather than priesthood.
“Liberating” the priesthood “from the weight of sacrifice” sounds like what most of us have experienced in the parishes in the decades since Vatican II, though I’d be lying if I said I had any idea what it means to “de-clericalize ordained ministry” or to “aspire to ordained ministry” in a way that is distinct from the priesthood. (Could it have something to do with turtlenecks?)
A bunch of radical progressives engaged in small group fantasizing, as entertaining as that no doubt must be, leaves aside the issue that really chafes: how did the protest at the Mass itself turn out? The Reporter has that answer, too:
About 20 people gathered Friday in Piazza Pia at the far end of the boulevard that runs into the plaza outside St. Peter’s Basilica, where a Mass for the Jubilee of Priests was beginning. The Women’s Ordination Worldwide supporters dressed in purple stoles — a symbol of women’s ordination — and carried signs that read, “Women priests are here.” They also had a cardboard replica of a telephone booth that was labeled, “Door to dialogue.”
WOW organizers had a permit for their demonstration, making it, they say, the first legal demonstration for the group in Rome.
“We walked down the pilgrim’s path toward St. Peter’s and joined the Mass for priests,” McElwee toldNCR. “However, the women priests with us had their stoles and signs taken away, as well as our leaflets and pins.”
Well at least someone at the Vatican recognized that their little show was inappropriate. Good on them.
All of this, however, points to the frustrating necessity of a larger discussion on a matter that should have already long-since been put to rest. Anyone who has given even a cursory glance to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is aware that the issue of women priests is a dead letter, despite what advocates of The Hermeneutic of Perpetual Innovation (and/or polyester pantsuits) would like us to believe. So since the Church needs women priests like a fish needs a bicycle, why are we still talking about this 22 years later?
I suspect that the real reasons are as complex and varied as the reality of fallen human nature. But if you want to point your finger at the underlying problem that keeps this whole debacle from dying on the vine, I suggest you turn your agitated gaze upon the wholly inappropriate presence of women in the sanctuary.
It is more than a little ironic to note that just two months before the promulgation of Ordinatio Sacerdoatalis, in which Pope John Paul II stated definitively “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”, he ordered the publication of another little document, with the purpose of establishing the practice of female altar service.
Liturgically speaking, this is akin to the man who tells a young lady that he’ll never marry her, but they should at least continue to make out. It is an ecclesiastical tease, the invitation to those of an impressionable age to flirt with a vocation they will never be called to — all while making it that much less likely that boys will continue to take an interest. It’s a completely manufactured and multifaceted vocations crisis all rolled up into one incredibly bad idea.
Some young women see it for the dead end it is. I’ll never forget how one of my female cousins, a number of years ago, was asked by a visiting deacon why she wasn’t serving at the altar with her brothers. She looked at him like he had been dropped on his head as a child, and stated flatly, “Because there’s no future in it.” She must have been about ten years old at the time. It was a proud moment for her parents, and a score for sensible people everywhere.
Today’s demonstration in Rome, however, makes clear that not all the ladies got the same memo.
Of course, it’s not just the presence of female altar boys that send a mixed message. Our sanctuaries are needlessly cluttered with Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist (to whom St. Thomas Aquinas would fervently object) and many of these are women. Our pulpits are routinely (and in some cases exclusively) visited by Lectors and Cantors with unmistakable X chromosomes (and in the case of the latter, inexplicably upraised palms). As Benedict Constable argued in a piece published in these pages last year, that this is permitted does not in any way mean it is wise:
To ignore differences of sex or to pretend that such differences make (or should make) no difference in the fulfilling of liturgical roles is surely to ignore, and probably to contradict, the “theology of the body” given to the Church by Saint John Paul II. Especially in our times, when confusion about sexuality is rampant, how we conceptualize and implement male and female roles in the Church cannot fail to have huge ramifications in our theological anthropology, moral theology, and even fundamental theology, extending all the way to the inerrancy of Scripture and the trustworthiness of apostolic Tradition.
[…]
The Apostle declares to the Corinthians: “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church” (1 Cor 14:33–35). Moreover, the same Apostle says to Saint Timothy: “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent” (1 Tim 2:11–12).
In accordance with this apostolic judgment, the Church, for nearly 2,000 years, did not permit any woman to exercise a liturgical ministry in the sanctuary. Thus, the Council of Laodicea (365 AD) stated in Canon 44: “Women may not approach near the altar.” But the Church, being guided by the Holy Spirit, cannot err in the pleasing worship of Almighty God. Therefore her constant customs indicate a divine disposition, and all discordant novelties are to be rejected.
[…]Hence, the now nearly universal custom of women reading at Mass deserves to be abolished as the historical aberration and theological danger that it is. Such a restoration of ancient discipline would be one more way to celebrate and consolidate the authentic teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which did not breathe a word about opening up liturgical ministries to women, and which expressly stipulated: “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them” (Sacrosanctum Concilium,23).
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has echoed this theme in his own work on liturgical reform:
All those who exercise an active role in the liturgy, such as lectors, or those announcing the prayer of the faithful, should always be dressed in the liturgical vestments; and only men, no women, because this is an exercise in the sanctuary, close to the priesthood. Even reading the lectionary is directed towards this liturgy which we are celebrating to Christ. And therefore only men dressed in liturgical vestments should be in the sanctuary.
Constable delves more deeply into the male/female symbolism in the liturgy here.
The priesthood is, and has always been, an inherently masculine office. The priests of the Old Testament were types of Christ; the priesthood as a sacrament, as it was established on Holy Thursday, took this intimacy with the person and mission of Christ to a whole new level. There may be thousands of Catholic priests in the world, but there is only one true priest and one true priesthood. Christ’s priesthood subsumes and animates the sacerdotal actions of the recipients of Holy Orders. Father Smith does not offer the Mass or absolve sins because he has been gifted the power to do so. Rather, by acting in persona Christi, the priest becomes a literal proxy for the action and power of Christ the True Priest – an action and power the priest makes present by observing, by means of the office bestowed upon him to do so, the matter and form of the sacrament. Each ordained man partakes of this one power of the priesthood. Like the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, all priests share in the supernatural abundance of this priestly power, and there is enough for all. And in order to act “in the person of Christ,” the ordained must bear an actual likeness to Christ on a fundamental level. Christ came as a man — not as a woman, not as a hermaphrodite, but a man. And it is only men who can fully represent Him in the power of His priesthood.
To mistake this is to misunderstand what it is, in the eyes of God, to be a man or a woman, a father or a mother, a priest or a nun. Gender is not merely a social construct, but an ontological reality. And for this reason, women no more belong in the sanctuaries of our churches than men belong in women’s restrooms. We seem to understand this latter concept, so why is the former so difficult for us?
There are those both in society and in the Church who seek to deny these things, in law and in custom. It is important to remember that even where they prevail in introducing some change in praxis or policy, they cannot change the very fabric of reality itself. No matter how we cross-dress it up, sacramental transgenderism is a lie. And until we come to our senses on this matter, only confusion and difficulty will result.
According to Edward Pentin in “Women’s ‘Ordination’ Never, but Dialogue With Vatican OK” in the June 3rd National Catholic Register ( http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/womens-ordination-never-but-dialogue-with-vatican-always-ok ), there is the possibility “that the the Vatican could come up with a reason to lift [the excommunication of ‘ordained’ women] such as claiming … that some of those involved are ‘not really against the Church’s teaching’ or that ‘it’s a “matter of interpretation’” and continue “dialogue” with them but not yet granting them a “mission” or faculties – similar to the manner in which Pope Benedict XVI acted (and Pope Francis has continued) with the Society of Saint Pius X.
So basically you can do anything you want in NuChurch and there is no penalty?
Well said, but one minor correction: Gender is a social construct; sex is an ontological reality. Let’s reclaim reality by disowning that word (unless used by grammarians).
Yes, as I’ve understood it, gender is the social role one takes. We have all fallen into the use of the word gender to mean sex or sexuality, and we should reclaim those words, and resist changing our terms. There is nothing wrong with the words “sex” or “sexuality”. They perfectly express what we are, one or the other.
As a woman, I agree completely with this article on every point. I remember being surprised when, under John Paul II, altar girls were approved, and was convinced it wouldn’t be a good thing, for all the reasons just cited.
This entire issue is a solution in search of a problem. This issue was settled. Nobody was clamoring for this. Pope John Paul settled it for the most part when he said it was definitively impossible. There are cranks and dissenters, but let’s face it, not many. Now they will be stoked into larger groups, polls will be taken, it will become a hotter topic, and hopes will be raised, probably with good cause. All of it unnecessary. At this point this pope and his minions put one in mind of President Obama, who follows the Alinsky-ite rule of overwhelming the dumb masses with one problem after another, keeping people off-balance by throwing so much at them they grow incapable of putting up much of a fight. It’s classic Marxism, apparently, and one has to say there can not be too much doubt in a reasonable person’s mind that this pope is going out of his way to torment a certain segment of the Catholic population and to alter Catholicism into something we won’t recognize.
Dear Steve. You’ve got the stomach for battle.
Thanks be to God.
In the Vatican journal Notitiæ, the liturgical scholar we have already mentioned, Aimé-Georges Martimort, affirms that
[the] general discipline of the Church [against female altar service] has been set in stone by canon 44 of the Collection of Laodicea which dates generally from the end of the 4th century and which has figured in almost all canonical collections of East and West. 3
Martimort also recalls that Popes ever since St. Gelasius in 494 had denounced this practice as an abuse. It appears there were already feminist influences making themselves felt in Sicily and southern Italy at that time, and Pope St. Gelasius felt obliged to write to the bishops of those regions saying
We have heard with sorrow of the great contempt [mépris] with which the sacred mysteries have been treated. It has reached the point where women have been encouraged to serve at the altar, and to carry out roles that are not suited to their sex, having been assigned exclusively to those of masculine gender.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt88.html
This revolutionary capitulation to feminism is, rightly so, redounding with extreme prejudice against the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church which does not have the cojones to kick the chicks out of the Sanctuary.
The revolutionaries still think they can pacify lunatics with half-measures and they are, rightfully so, not afraid of Catholic men.
Do you think Orthodox men would let the revolutionaries wreck their sanctuaries and solicit women to serve at their altars? No way; they’d bum-rush the bastids out of the church.
We men failed to act and IANS is one of the worst offenders- all talk, no action….
Perhaps it’s time to find some concrete ways to act. So many of us have been all talk and no action. The question is… what can we do? Should we start making a ruckus in the Church when abuses happen? That seems possibly effective but perhaps irreverent (not that abuses are reverent either). What else is there? We can talk to priests and “liturgists” who will not listen no matter what. I don’t know. Ideas?
Dear Jaffin. It was roughly a score of years ago that IANS took the decision to physically oppose any attempt to remove any Altar in the Diocese he then lived in- no matter what Diocese that was.
The plan was to sneak into that church at night and have a friend chain me to the Altar and then call the local media early the next morning and be there when they arrived with an explanatory pamphlet prepared to be distributed etc.
The LAST thing any Bishop wants is trouble with the media that would cause a scandal whereas most Bishops had no trouble wrecking the Sanctuary, removing Altars, Altar Rails, Kneelers etc.
And, yes, IANS had a friend who would help him and yes IANS would have done that and he told his Bride who was not amused; They’ll put you in jail, you idiot
“I was always convinced that the church of Vatican II must come to de-clericalize ordained ministry, liberating it from the weight of sacrifice.” What Perroni wants, then, is not Catholicism. Sacrifice is integral to the faith, and to our entire conception of the priesthood.
Thank you for admitting that in Catholic doctrine women are less of the image of God than men are.
Well, some of them clearly can’t read, so there’s that.
You clearly state “And in order to act “in the person of Christ,” the ordained must bear an actual likeness to Christ on a fundamental level. Christ came as a man — not as a woman, not as a hermaphrodite, but a man. And it is only men who can fully represent Him in the power of His priesthood.” Christ is the human incarnate God, and in Catholic theology it is essential that God be physically male. Hitler or Charles Manson bear more of the image of Christ than any woman no matter how holy she is. So, what it is the mysterious element of maleness that Christ possesses and no women ever have? (And please don’t insult my intelligence with the stupid argument about Motherhood. The only parts of human child rearing unique to females are pregnancy and lactation. Those are traits we share with every other placental mammal, so you could just as easily say that cows or rats are the feminine image of God because they’re so much better at pregnancy and lactation than we are. )
The image and likeness of God is distinct from the ability to act in persona Christi.
The Baltimore Catechism answers the question simply:
And for the comprehension impaired, there’s a further explanation of terms:
We are made in the image and likeness of God as rational creatures with intellects and free wills. “He created them male and female; and blessed them: and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” (Gen. 5:2)
Mary, as the mother of God, is the highest and most perfect of all created beings. She is not only the God-bearer, conceived without sin and sinless through life, but she is Queen of Heaven and Earth.
Do you really think that the bestowal of these honors on Mary somehow precludes her from typifying God’s image and likeness? Do you really think that any man who has ever been created is as close to the image and likeness of God as she?
And yes, if you find motherhood insulting, then I will happily insult you with it: motherhood innately bears a dignity and purpose that transcends almost anything a man can do outside of his participation in Christ’s priesthood itself. As women are fond of joking (and men are forced to concede), the contribution of a man to the creation of a new life born into this world is rather insignificant by comparison to what a woman does.
Only a woman, in a mystical allegory to the Eucharist, nourishes new life by her own body and brings it forth. We should stand in awe of the power of motherhood, not cast aspersions upon it as something quotidian and strictly biological.
And of course, there is arguably no more important task in this life than the education and formation of the children brought into this world by mothers; for we are created to “know, love, and serve God in this life, and to be happy with Him in the next.” A mother is always the first teacher of a child. It is she who impresses upon the young mind, the young soul, the importance of his purpose. Chesterton has written beautifully about this, but I suspect you wouldn’t be interested in reading it, Karen. You seem to have an axe to grind that is beneath the unique gifts and status God has given to you.
I’ve read Chesterton. He thought that women should be denied the vote because voters served on juries and juries passed death sentences and it was unseemly for women to participate in capital punishment. He never once noticed the injustice of juries made entirely of males having the power to condemn women. It’s terrible for us to condemn men but completely delightful for men to condemn us. Also, it’s really rich for a middle class childless male who never arsed himself to get his own damned coffee blathering about the beauties of homemaking to women who worked as domestic servants all day. So yeah, Chesterton is not persuasive.
That’s not what I was talking about. Although universal suffrage was one of the worst ideas in human history. Personally, I’m all for head of household landowners being the only ones allowed to vote. They have the most skin in the game. (There’s an argument for coverture too – a single woman who owned land might be allowed to vote, but if she was married, there’d be one vote per household.)
Even many intelligent women ask their husbands who they should vote for because they’re disinterested in politics. And of course, the womens’ vote in this country skews disproportionately progressive.
But I’m not that big of a fan of the democratic process anyway. I’m beginning to suspect I’m really a closet monarchist.
Anyway, God gave men headship. You don’t have to like it, but your argument is with him.
Finally! You admit that you really believe that men are better than women at everything! This is not about reason or logic or any evidence about the abilities of men and women, just that men should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want without interference by stupid cootie-filled girls!
As for universal suffrage, no, heads of household property owners have the most interest in preserving their undeserved privileges at the expense of everyone else who lacks those privileges. I doubt you would enjoy very much a world where you knew you would never, ever have a voice or say in how your lived your life because you weren’t born in the correct sex, skin color, or social class. Your preferred system means that everyone who isn’t from the privileged class lives in terror of the whims of the privileged. “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” This, whatever nonsense the Catholics teach you to the contrary, is not Christianity.
What straw men, Karen. You should be able to reproduce an argument with some accuracy before you refute it, not simply parse it into your own words through the lens of a preconceived (prejudiced!) notion that your interlocutor is a bigot. What rubbish!
His argument is that only male property owners should have any say in public policy because they’re the only people with, as he says, “skin in the game.” Even a wife who owns most of the family property through inheritance would have to cede her franchise to her husband, no matter what a gold-digging fool he might be. My refutation is that the only people allowed to participate in such as system will allow every kind of abuse possible to those “below” them so long as the system preserves the privileges of being a male property owner.
As far as Skopjec’s opinion of women, he thinks we should be domestic slaves. He wouldn’t use those exact words, but he clearly disapproves of women having any kind of public role or public authority. He doesn’t respect me so I see no reason to respect him.
“He wouldn’t use those exact words…” Why wouldn’t he? Either he feels the need to hide his true thoughts, or these are not his true thoughts…I don’t see him parsing his words and hiding from his thoughts…you are indulging in mind reading here.
You do realize that’s how voting used to work, right? I’m not just making it up. Property owners pay taxes. They have tangible, real assets that are directly affected by governance in ways that others are not. (This was before the income tax, but remember that nearly half of U.S. Households do not pay income tax. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/tax-units-zero-or-negative-income-tax/tax-units-zero-or-negative-income-tax)
Universal sufferage has led to kakistocracy. People who know more about the Kardashians than the Constitution are allowed, and even encouraged to vote. People who are on the dole of the government — those who receive sustenance level welfare subsidies in particular — are encouraged to vote. And who do they vote for? The people who keep giving them free money. And as Ann Coulter said in 2007, “If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president…” That’s an unpopular opinion, but one based on statistics. (See a recent example here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/07/womens-vote-obama-victory-election)
Coverture, for what it’s worth, was also a real system, based largely on a biblical understanding of family hierarchy: http://www.britannica.com/topic/coverture
I don’t think women should be domestic slaves at all, but I do believe that our loss of a sense of the God-given roles of men and women in family and society is, in large part, responsible for our current state of social collapse. We’re all chipping away at what we’ve inherited, and those who care about anything good are trying to find a way back.
I am married to a brilliant, capable, strong woman. More capable than any woman I’ve ever met. She’s such an outstanding performer in whatever she applies herself to, she easily outearns me in my more specialized profession. The thing is, she doesn’t want a career. She wants to be a full-time mother. As we strive to restore that balance, she continues to sell real estate, all while being a homeschooling mom to seven kids. I couldn’t possibly compete with her on a business level. She’d eat me alive.
But that doesn’t change the fact that God has given me the office of headship in my family. Whether or not I live up to it, whether or not she respects it, whether or not I outearn her or she outearns me, etc., God established a hierarchy and roles. He put men at the head of the Church, and of the family, which is a domestic church. The office is not dependent on the office holder. And authority does not demean submission to it. Just because you have a commanding officer doesn’t make you a slave. Have you ever had a boss at a job? Did that make you a slave? No, you were just someone under authority.
That’s just how it is. We can try to fight it, but it just makes us miserable. And most of us have tried. Now it’s time to cobble it back together.
Incidentally, I don’t disrespect you as a woman, I disrespect your specious arguments. Make better ones, and my opinion of you will improve.
Yes, I am aware that voting worked that way, but that system was abandoned at last for white males in this country 200 years ago. Coverture was a thoroughly unjust system that gave males complete domination over their wives. I’m genuinely glad you have a happy marriage, and your wife sounds like an amazing woman. You are not a stupid person, even if I think your positions are mostly wrong, it is apparent that you arrived at them through thought and analysis. Based on that I assume you listen to wife. Most men, in my experience, are not like that and none that I’ve ever known are wise all the time. In the headship-by-sex system, the only way women can ever exercise agency is by cajoling men to agree with us. We have no right to act on our own. You don’t actually ever have to listen to us and can inflict whatever whims you wish against us.
Most men value their wives as persons, and as partners. They want their input. They value their insights and intuitions. Are there some who don’t? Sure.
Since voting came up, I’m tossing out some ideas. I really do think universal suffrage was a bad idea, although I’m far more concerned with allowing people who are qualified to vote to do so than to delineate broad, pre-determined categories of people who aren’t qualified. There are people of every race, color, and sex who shouldn’t be entrusted with such responsibility.
So while I’m open to persuasion on this, I do think the system we have is bad. It’s broken. It has failed us. We are in a complete mess, and it’s largely because of the empowerment of the ignorant.
Am I on a big public campaign for any of this? Nope. Am I advocating for coverture laws? Not even a little. We’re a bit too far gone for all of it.
But I do believe that rebellion against the authority structure God has put in place — and this is a two sided coin, because not only have women rebelled against their husbands, but husbands (myself included) have failed to lead and love their wives “as Christ loves the Church” — has much to do with the societal collapse we’re seeing, and in particular, the destruction of the family.
It seems to me that it’s important to begin talking about this, and saying things that are considered unthinkable out loud. To have those conversations is to acknowledge, at least, that the paradigm we live in isn’t the only conceivable one, nor is it in any way the one God laid out for us.
I don’t claim to have the answers. My responses so far have been rooted in ideas – ideas that require more study before they would make their way out of a comment box. But I do sense that something is very broken, and it’s making us all miserable. This is, in part, why there has been a resurgence of theories teaching men that if they don’t become more insensitive and take charge, their wives won’t respect them. (I don’t fully agree with these as they are often put forward, but the guys who do do it because they see the results it gets.) We also see studies coming out saying things like, “Husbands who do more domestic chores have less sex/get divorced at a higher rate.” It all keeps coming back to something innate in our roles. Women ask for beta males because they want some of those traits, but then they find that they’re really more attracted to alpha traits. Leadership. Strength. Emotional immovability, etc.
In any case, one area where we can do something concrete to begin a restoration of propriety is at the altar. It’s a known quantity, and it has a long tradition. The all-male priesthood will always be all-male, so to begin radiating out from that and to remind ourselves that the other roles in the sanctuary are supposed to be male-only is a good first step.
Finally! You admit that you really believe that men are better than women at everything!
Where did I say any of that? I didn’t say it. I don’t believe it.
As for universal suffrage, no, heads of household property owners have the most interest in preserving their undeserved privileges at the expense of everyone else who lacks those privileges.
That’s absurd. They absolutely deserve privileges. They’ve paid for them. If I buy a house, or a car, or a boat, people who don’t get to pay for them only get to use them when I say they can. If I pay membership dues, or dues to an HOA, those who don’t pay dues should not be entitled to the same privileges I am. The phrase “membership has its privileges” is not just a cliche, it’s a truism.
I doubt you would enjoy very much a world where you knew you would never, ever have a voice or say in how your lived your life because you weren’t born in the correct sex, skin color, or social class.
I wouldn’t. But that’s not the world I’m describing. First of all, I’m not a racist. Secondly, I was discussing coverture because it gave women rights when they were single that were subsumed into the household when they were married. (Is the best way? I don’t know. What we do now sure isn’t.)
Your preferred system means that everyone who isn’t from the privileged class lives in terror of the whims of the privileged.
No, it means that those who know what they’re doing aren’t governed by the ignorant, which is what we have now. My children currently live in a system where they don’t have a right to have a say (though I do ask them what they think). They only have the privileges I give to them, and those are based on their level of maturity and responsibility. Why shouldn’t a society work the same way? Why shouldn’t it at least be a meritocracy, rather than a kakistocracy? Why shouldn’t people have to at least demonstrate competence before being allowed a say in matters of serious public interest? Do you want a doctor operating on you when he never had to study surgery? What if he just watches YouTube videos about cats all day? Is that enough of a qualification?
You seem to think that there’s no difference in various stakeholders when it comes to the running of a given enterprise. If that’s so, think of something you’re in charge of, then ask yourself how you came to be in charge of it, then give equal authority to someone unqualified to have it, then tell me how that goes.
“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
That’s not what I’m arguing at all. I don’t know a single man who doesn’t care about the well-being of his wife and family. Most of them do all that they can, sacrificing a great deal, to ensure exactly that. Having the authority to vote for that, to protect it, and to have authority over it is not a bad thing.
This, whatever nonsense the Catholics teach you to the contrary, is not Christianity.
You overplayed your hand there, with the “Catholics teach you.” But the scriptures are replete with the kind of thing I’m talking about. And so, it actually is Christianity. We’re just not very good any more at living it.
The problem with your system is this: how do you ensure that only the educated and capable own property and that only stupid people are excluded from power?
Who would vote in households where the woman was the only money earner or in households where women earned more money than their husband?
Well, that didn’t happen in the old days. I suppose there were those rare cases where poorer men married women who were heirs to significant fortunes.
In any case, we’re in an entirely different set of circumstances now. There isn’t a practical way to restore what was. That said, I do believe we need to regain the value of headship, and frankly, that universal suffrage should at least be reduced to those who can pass a basic test demonstrating an understanding of the issues in play.
The inversion of the hierarchies of authority God has created are deeply diabolical in origin. Fr. Chad Ripperger talks about the role of authority in spiritual combat in some of his talks. They’re worth a listen. (You can find them at Sensustraditionis.org. The talks for husbands and wives are key.)
And again, because I never get an answer on this, exactly what trait do all males have that all women lack than makes them the image of Christ?
Do you have even the slightest concept of ontology? Do you understand that sex (people get upset when I use the word “gender”) is not a social construct, is not even purely biological, but exists on a spiritual level?
There’s more here, though I don’t get the feeling you’d be very receptive to it.
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/male-female-symbolism-in-liturgical-roles-not-bizarre-just-catholic/
Based on that article, Catholic doctrine teaches that female = “receptive,” or passive. So, women don’t get to exercise agency or creativity; we’re required to be mindless cheerleaders for the nearest male. I find that horrible.
I see. I think that’s quite a reach, based on what is actually contained in that text, but it seems to have struck a nerve nonetheless.
Curious: since we believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, what do you make of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?
Frankly, I was more disturbed by the idea that women need to be silent and submissive, and if they must speak only do so in their home with a submissive manner to their husband — talk about driving women away from not only the Church but marriage. BTW I don’t support women priests, deacons or altar boys but I don’t believe it is shameful for women to speak or use their brain — why not have separate rooms and put the women in burkas. Ann Barnhardt does an excellent job (the best I’ve ever seen) of explaining why the priesthood is reserved for men. http://www.barnhardt.biz/the-one-about/the-one-about-why-priests-can-only-ever-be-men/
I take it that’s an argument for the ordination of every human person, at the moment of baptism. Which would be deeply silly.
I’m female and I agree whole-heartedly with Steve, I agree 100% with the traditional teaching of the Church. One reason I go to a FSPP Church is because it is so reverent with only men in the sanctuary. I believe the Bible says God made man in his image and likeness, “male and female he created them”. I don’t have a Bible with me right now, but the way I have heard it explained (i think in Theology of the Body?) is humanity is in the image & likeness of God precisely because of the complementarity of male and female. But I understand your feelings. The Church needs to go deeper in study and promotion of an authentic theology of women, promotion of the maternal gifts women bring to the Church.
Were you and I reading the same document, Karen?
Being a priest has absolutely nothing to do with one’s quality of being ‘an image of God’.
So God calls terrible people to be priests because those people are male but will never speak to a woman?
Karen, at the expense of being unkind, your comment is most illogical. How does being a priest in any way indicate that God will or will not ‘speak’ to a woman? Please explain what you are trying to say.
In Catholic ecclesiology the priest intercedes for the people with God; the people do not approach God indepenently of the priest. The character of the priest is irrelevant to this function; the priest performs the sacraments and the sacraments do the work. So, the most evil male on the planet could be ordained as a priest and provide sacraments while no woman, no matter how holy, can never perform that function.
You are right. Being a priest is not based on a particular man’s worthiness. It is a vocational call given by God to particular men based on God’s choice. The priestly call to particular men in no way derogates a woman to being ‘a lesser image of God’. You seem to want the priestly call to be based on an individual person’s goodness and worthiness. It is not. God chooses the weak things of this world to confound the mighty. It is His choice. A call to priesthood is not a ‘right’ for anyone. You want to tell God to whom He should give the priestly call according to your judgment as to what would be ‘fair’. In other words, the good should have priority over the priestly privilege. This is bad theology, as anyone with a religious vocation can attest.
I suspect that your complaint is more properly directed to public prayer and the offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass, not to the Sacraments in toto: (1) every Catholic woman has the power to administer a Sacrament – one, in fact, which no priest has the power to administer – namely, Marriage; (2) Baptism can be administered in time of need by anyone, man or woman, if properly disposed; (3) anyone, man or woman, may approach God directly and independently of a priest in private prayer.
The GREATEST HUMAN AFTER CHRIST IS THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY!
Not some Pope!
But you don’t understand this!
So go ahead and get some male clown to play the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Joan of Arc in a play, and see how many will come to see these stupid plays!
Keep in mind that this, along with other feminist “demands,” is not about equality or rights, or anything else. It is about POWER.
“And for this reason, women no more belong in the sanctuaries of our churches than men belong in women’s restrooms. We seem to understand this latter concept, so why is the former so difficult for us?”
How long for and by how many do you think that this latter concept will remain self-evident? Unfortunately it might not be the best comparison you could have chosen!
Otherwise, I agree with every word you wrote. Amen!
What I don’t understand is if these so called nuns want to Protestantize the Catholic Mass, why don’t they just leave the Catholic church and join a Protestant church where the can become ministers! Show them the door, problem solved!
Whether one wants to admit it or not, the fact that Rome will enact legalities which will contradict Catholic Church teaching does not change the fact that that realty is soon upon us. Attempting to find a way to live harmoniously with blatant contradictions to the teachings of Christ as we know them will become impossible. Each of us will be faced with the truth that one either stands with Christ or one stands with a false institutional church spouting nonsense. For example, if you really want to look at it, Amoris Laetitia actually disavows the reality of sin. As complacent silence continues to reign among bishops, Bergoglio gets bolder and bolder. He is on a mission to destroy the Church, and refusal to stand up to him by those who should, prepares the way for the atrocious reality of ‘womyn priests’. I have no doubt that the bishop of Rome would be up for it, no matter what blather to the contrary he has sputtered. His word means nothing. Wake up, people.
And sadly, most of those who should speak up are actually with him. How many Cardinals still hold the true faith? None with the power to do anything it seems. As then Father Joseph Ratzinger said, it seems it may be coming time for a small Church, which has lost much of its wealth and grandeur; whose priests must work in the secular world to make their own living. And this beautiful, small, Catholic Church may need to exist alongside the monstrosity that has grown since the reign of modernism began… the True Pope (if there is one then) will live in a small house in Rome while a false one reigns in the Papal Palace… I don’t know how long we have, but this is seeming more and more likely. We shall see.
I honestly still don’t understand why this is an issue… I can understand people not liking it or not understand why things are this way, but Pope St. John Paul II definitively closed the matter on female ordination. It’s settled. Done. Go ahead and dislike it. Go ahead and be confused by it. Both can be solved with some education and a little humility. But this outright denial completely perplexes me. And that they are being entertained, even if it’s just for some momentary appeasement, by the Vatican is just dumbfounding.
I have to be honest for a moment here and say two things. First, I am so very grateful for 1P5 and for you Steve. Without you, I would be blind to what’s going on. And secondly, all of this mayhem in the Church is really throwing me for a loop. As was alluded to in an earlier post (I forget which one), I’m one of those relatively recent converts (6 years) and what I’m getting here is not what I was promised… it is not what is in Scripture, it is not what the Early Church Fathers speak of, it is not even what newer theologians like Scott Hahn, or the illustrious Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger present to their readers. It’s this strange amalgam of strange innovation… Half the time it’s hard to determine whether something is genuine, good, and Catholic, and what is some sort of strange hybridized monstrosity. It makes being Catholic so hard and, on very rare occasion, makes me wonder if I really want to be. I do, but it’s so very hard. My wife is at Adoration right now (it’s 12:26am) and she asked me if I wanted to go along. I gave some sort of lame excuse and didn’t go… because I’m having a very hard time and perhaps even a little upset with Our Lord for letting things go so off the reservation. When we have destroyers of Catholicism in the highest places in the Church. When heretics are celebrated as wise and insightful theologians. Great pastors. It’s very hard.
Anyways, thanks again for this site and your faithfulness Steve. And thanks to all the contributors and faithful Catholics in the comments. We trudge on through the murk together!
Dear Jafin, ‘Let nothing disturb you; Let nothing frighten you. All things are passing. God never changes. Patience obtains all things. Nothing is wanting to him who possesses God.
God alone suffices.’ St Teresa of Avila
Don’t let the devil get to you. We have much work to do now. Being a good Catholic, to be a saint, is in one sense the hardest thing you could ever possibly choose to be in this world, yet with God’s grace, ‘my yoke is sweet and my burden light’ Matthew 11:30.
It is time to enter deeper into the mysteries of Christ. Let us run to Him for understanding. It is not found elsewhere. Let us be true men and true women, according to the will of God! It is ‘a hard and rugged path’. We must go to Christ for our strength! Here you will find what you seek. To turn away is only to look into darkness. Eyes to Christ, the light of the world (John 8:12), faith unswerving! Pray for grace! Pray and pray for it! Never give up!
I have a recommendation for you. It is the book Divine Intimacy which has daily meditations according to the liturgical year. It is a guide to the spiritual life. I highly recommend it. https://www.baroniuspress.com/book.php?wid=56&bid=48#tab=tab-1
And also, just a little something, this post about eucharistic adoration http://vultuschristi.org/index.php/2016/02/sink-into-the-ground-of-adoration/ It is written to priests, but is also good for the rest of us. They often have good posts on adoration.
Lastly, this coming Thursday is the Feast of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus 😉
(which is always on the Thursday in the octave following the Feast of the Sacred Heart.)
God bless you and your family dear brother in Christ!
You can’t love the truth without hating the evil
Romans 12: 9 Love without dissimulation. Hating that which is evil adhering to that which is good:
Editing, as I think I get what you are saying now. But I just want to add the following because I think others reading might benefit from understanding this verse more clearly.
This verse refers to ‘that’ which is evil. Not ‘whom’. Excluding of course the fallen angels whom have chosen untruth forever. Hate can only ever be directed towards such things that are eternally untruth, if I understand it correctly. And I’m not sure that this type of ‘hate’ involves the emotions, though I guess it could, so much as an absolute and unremitting rejection of evil, which to the degree required, could not have any other definition than that of hatred? In any other way it belongs under the category of anger, one of the seven deadly sins.
In coming to know the truth better, Christ, people gain clearer perspective on how to hate that which is evil, while not hating the sinner. How to find life in Christ, not death in despair.
God bless you!
Dear Sharyn. Yes, obviously, that is the meaning.
But it does not mean it is a sin to hate the evil men do – it is, rather, a virtue.
Ah, okay, good then! Glad I understood right. Still perplexed as to how it relates to what I wrote, but totally agree!
Their Immortal Souls are in grave danger with this excommunication on them. They should be asking for Catechism lessons, not a chance to be heard.
Thanks Steve. In order to restore the original teaching of Christ and the Church will, I think, require divine intervention. My guess is that if the average Catholic were asked if they had any objections to female priests the answer would be an overwhelming NO. After all, at Sunday Mass nearly all the Eucharistic ministers, altar servers and lectors are women. It has been this way for years. For most folks the next step, female deacons and priests, is only natural. And given Pope Francis penchant for innovation, diversity, whatever it would not be surprising if female deacons and priests appeared rather sooner than later. Let us pray for divine intervention.
If this is not one of the most stupid and hypocritical words ever to hiss out of their mouths I don’t know what is.
Here they are wanting to be clerics and they want the ordained ministry to be de-clericalized? Does a soft head and heresy go hand in hand somehow?
From reading the title alone, I almost expected to hear about women now declaring themselves to be men to get around the problem of male only ordination…you know, the way men with male packaging now declare themselves to be women and use the women’s bathroom.
Anglicanism, here we come…
https://ignatiushisconclave.org/author/gkirkuk/
http://www.fatimamovement.com/images/img-third-secret-of-fatima/Third-Secret-of-Fatima-large.jpg
This photo appeared on the internet somewhere around 2010. I cannot find the source for it. It is in Portuguese, and in Sr Lucia’s hand. It purports to be the text of the Third secret of Our Lady at Fatima. Here is the translation:
“JMJ
Now I am going to reveal the third fragment of the secret: This part is the apostasy in the Church!
Our Lady showed us the individual who I describe as the ‘holy Father’ in front of a multitude that was cheering him.
But there was a difference from a true holy Father, his devilish gaze, this one had the gaze of evil.
Then, after some moments we saw the same Pope entering a Church, but this Church was the Church of hell; there is no way to describe the ugliness of that place. It looked like a gray cement fortress with broken angles and windows similar to eyes; it had a beak in the roof of the building.
Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church; this letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960.
In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter’s grave must be removed and transferred to Fatima.
Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima.
The cathedral of Rome must be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.
If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed.
Our Lady told us that this is written,[in] Daniel 9:24-25 and Matthew 21:42-44”
69 weeks after the signing of Amoris laetitia is the 100th anniversary of the giving of the three secrets, July 13th, 1917.
John Paul ll did indeed transfer a corner stone from St Peter’s tomb to Fatima. It went into the church described in the above text: the basilica of the Holy Trinity in Fatima, which is the ugliest church ever built:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Church+of+the+Holy+Trinity/@39.6303666,-8.677182,608m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0xd189d3b966a57dd:0x324e4d8eec08c5ad!8m2!3d39.629672!4d-8.6752832
If you look at this basilica from a satellite image, it sits at the foot of the original shrine like a “dragon waiting to devour her offspring”….(Rev 12:4)
Thank you, Steve, for your patience in allowing me to post this.
Is there any way to talk about the latter’s authenticity?
I can’t find any source for the letter. The earliest web source is here: http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B352_Secret.html
That’s from 2010 and there is some intelligent discussion about the letter on that site. The trail stops there, as far as I know.
Some interesting numbers associated with this date and the destruction of the “Cathedral of Rome”: 2017 happens also to be the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s 99 theses denouncing indulgences and the papacy. The indulgences that drove this issue were Pope Leo X’s method of sponsoring the rebuilding of St Peter’s basilica. Indulgences were being sold as a method of fundraising by this Medici pope to build the st Peter’s that we have now in Rome…the one which is threatened with destruction in the letter above.
Oh and the Holy Father is going to Sweden this year to hang with his Lutheran pals
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/01/25/pope_to_travel_to_sweden_for_joint_reformation_commemoration/1203462
Oh and “hagan Lio!”
Jesus is a man, therefore, the person acting in the person of Christ must also be a man.
People who disagree with this is DISHONORING Jesus’ biological sex.
If some male fool shows up and wants to play the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary or Joan of Arc in a play, he should be kicked out because he is DISHONORING their biological sex.
Liberals are LAME and perverted! That’s why they’re okay with men in the women’s public showers.
I am so sick of this! Hey, new law 2+2 = 5 !
Bruce Jenner could have his pick.
These people are just out to stir-up trouble. They are the same as their compatriots in the Women’s Liberation Movement, who were mainly lesbians & tried their best to foist their opinions on everyone, particularly those of us who didn’t want anything to do with them. The same group support Planned Parenthood probably out of envy for those who can and do produce offspring rather than out of compassion as they like to imply. They should be ignored in the hope they’ll give-up and go and get a real job. Who pays for all this disturbance anyway?
I’ll quote the satanic seeming lines to ask if anyone has an inkling as to what the “ones” might refer to.
Specifically, what does “radicalized the theology of ministry as the stereotypical post-Tridentine ones” mean?
It’s gobbledygook. Doesn’t mean anything, it’s there to muddy the waters. I’ve had that rubbish thrown at me and been left speechless by it. Ask them to explain the meaning of this twaddle and they can’t, except with more meaningless twaddle. Then tell them it’s meaningless and walk away. They’ll roll their eyes and say you’re stupid (or their favourite, uneducated. But who cares what these poor, benighted people think?) Pray to the Holy Ghost to enlighten their darkened minds. (Oh, and ours too. We’re not out of the woods either)
The message I get from the picture of this ‘priestess’ is ‘let’s eat, drink and be merry.’
What that picture brings to mind for me is Anne Barnhardt’s “Go clean the kitchen you stupid, stupid woman!” On that subject, is it ok for woman to clean the sanctuary? I do it sometimes at my local church. I don’t want to break rules. It’s a wonderful privilege but I don’t want it if it isn’t right.
Just an interesting observation ~ I know the person in the picture. She is a Methodist Minister. I used to work for her.
There’s a place for her after Mass in the Catholic Church….she can serve coffee and crumb cake in the rectory for Mass attendees and kids. LOL
Doesn’t look like a person about to be crucified.
How long before women who “identify as men” begin to demand ordination, and drag the Supreme Court and the President into the battle?
It’s as though you’ve seen the future…
Not hard to do these days with the “Left” so predictable and playing by an old tired Marxist script. I never thought I would live to see the day! ugh