Revisiting women's ordination, again

A couple of points...it's not just the Roman Catholic Church that doesn't ordain women. The Eastern Orthodox also refuse ordination to women (although one could argue that the Greek Orthodox Church recently allowed female deacons to be ordained). This is not a question of sexism. It's a question of 2,000 years of tradition. While you can argue that some "traditions" have been broken and added to over the past 2,000 years, if you don't like the Catholic tradition of a male-only priesthood, then join a religion that ordains women. Why belong to something that doesn't agree with what you believe?

Its pretty surprising to see quoted basically the same figures pro women's "ordination", but the contra the attempted ordination seems to keep changing. At least in the media. The good news is that, in the real world, the bulwarks of truth remain.

Absent in these articles, as ever, is the proper coverage that is to be given to the definitive and unchangeable teaching of the Church on the subject: that there is no such thing as "women's ordination" because women can't be ordained priests by the authority of the Church, which is the only authority that can ordain a priest.

The correct headline should have been "4 ex-Catholics "ordained" Protestant ministers in Boston", and the story should have been on B14 next to the classifieds.

These women are in exactly the same state as any protestant minister who calls themselves a "priest": under no circumstances would one consider them as acting in persona Christi, for instance, since they have no Orders from the Church. (There's a reason why when you say "The Church" even protestants know who you are talking about).

It's not always nice to watch people play dress-up with the trappings of the thing one loves (sort of like going to a drag show - they can tuck and primp all they want, and even have the surgery, but nothing will ever make them actual women), but we can endure it and offer it up for the holy souls, conforming ourselves into the image of Jesus as he endured the abuse to His Person during the passion.

I'm curious, though, about the hypothesis of a 'religious freedom' reversal on something more a superficial level.

That is to say, actually reading what the Vatican II document on the subject of religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, has to say (an effort I commend to anybody, especially those who think there is, in fact, a change), I find no obvious reversal of the Catholic defense of the clear error of separation of Church and State (that is, in authority) that the French Republicans (who brought you the first "Reign of Terror") posited, which is what Pius X railed against, his clear voice being long overdue, speaking at a time that the results of secularization of Europe would within 10 years bring about the horrors of WWI which lead to WWII.

As far as I'm concerned, and I'm pretty comfortable I'm on solid doctrinal ground here, the Church still teaches that the premise of "Separation of Church and State" is a bad one. At the very least, after all, why would you ever separate yourselves from the truth, (as Vatican II says) "For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth". Its failures are manifest, I think in the moral relativism and ontological nihilism that characterizes Western culture of this age.

That said, separation of "churches" and state is not a terrible idea, though, since obviously any given protestant ecclesial community, as a body, doesn't merit or hold any right to authority, so you'd better organize yourselves in some other way than that if you want to have any cohesion as a society (and avoid the balkanization that took place in Germany, for instance, in the 16thC).

A more appropriate way to read VII's reflection on religious freedom is that, curiously enough, you find that if you protect the rights of Catholics, you'll end up protecting the actual rights of everybody else as well.

As to Democracy, as they say, is the least bad of all forms of government, but it has its failures: I'd prefer something closer to the aristo-polity that the founding fathers seem to have envisioned. But that's just me. What the Church says is that many forms of Government are good, if and only if they conform themselves to truth and justice (of which, religious freedom is a form of justice).

I'm reminded, and I think Mr. Marty should be reminded, of what Archbishop Agostino Marchetto said about a year ago, that Vatican II is not open to the sort of "free interpretations" (that is to say, interpretations unconstrained by, you know, the truth) that characterize this kind of synthesis. (Abp. Marchetto was speaking of the Bologna school which posited as fait' accompli' a "democratization" of the Church in the wake of VII, something which didn't happen then, and won't happen now, and is an analysis born of deconstruction rather than of a hermeneutic based on reality).

I think Jim brings up a valid point. I personally believe the Bible is clear on the the subject of women in the pastorship. Women are given a very specific role in the church: to support their families, both personal and ecumenical. The only thing women aren't allowed to do is have leadership positions (deacon, elder, pastor) in the church. We all know how important women are to every church and most if not all would crumble if not for all of the strong and talented women in the church community. Part of this is willful submission. It is a conscious effort to accept God's will for your life. If you are purposefully disobeying God's word, that is disobedience. Jim is right, if you don't like what your church is teaching, its time to switch.