What An Odd Thing To Say
No matter how one views the issue of woman’s ordination, if one believes women can be ordained to the priesthood (I don’t, but I do think they can be raised to the diaconate), it doesn’t mean the priesthood is a commodity one can take for oneself. Sadly, that is how it seems many women who “become ordained” feel about it. They are missing out on a good which they want, and their desire is indication of their right to possess it. Korah and Dathan thought the same.
I can understand why some women look at it as an issue of possession. The capitalistic ethic imbibes much of American Catholicism, and this should explain why we find a great number of American women demanding ordination. Orders is a good, a discernible object created by human work. Like all goods, it should be traded about in an open market, but the all-male hierarchy have a monopoly on it, forbidding such free trade. That monopoly needs to be broken, even if it takes civil– or sacred — disobedience. Fine. With the marketization of religion, I can understand that argument. Everything is an economic concern. I definitely don’t agree with it, and I think the response must come from an explanation as to why the capitalistic ethic is incompatible with the Christian faith. But what I don’t understand is how some think their excommunication makes draws them closer, not further, from God:
CAROL MITCHELL: What we’re looking for in a priest is compassion, intellect and a modeling of our devotion to the Lord. We can find that in either man or woman. Our women priests are perhaps modeling a closer walk with God, because we’re suffering the excommunication from the church that we love. (source:Fred Thys at wbur.org)
Being excommunicated from the Church brings one closer to God? Something about that statement reminds me of some Sufis who taught that Iblis (Satan) was God’s greatest lover: Iblis disobeyed God’s command to bow before Adam out of his great love for God, and willingly suffered condemnation by God and to be separated from God to let that love flourish.
Comments are closed.
Henry,
I suppose it’s possible that capitalism has some influence on these women, but I think more specifically the influence comes from the culture of entitlement, the culture that says “it’s my right and who are you to deny me my rights”. Maybe this culture is in some way a result of the capitalist ethos, but I don’t think it is a necessary result. I think you are incorrectly reducing the scope of the problem when you speak of it only as a consequence of an economic system or its ethic.
…if that makes any sense.
Zach
But what is it that makes people think it is a right to get what one desires? Consumerism. It preaches it. It is what justifies the free market. If you want something, go get it. Take it. It’s yours. If you can afford it. And consumerism is what allows capitalism to seem like a success. Capitalism thrives on desire and the push to get people to find a way to get their desire; it has no way of explaining why one shouldn’t get what one desires, except, of course, by economics, and even then it says, “Just save, and one day you too can get it.” It’s the ethos.
Hmmm. Touche.
Undoubtedly, unbridled consumerism needs to be restrained. I suppose the next question is, how to do this?
Traditionally, religious communities fostered this restraint. In the absence of this influence, what do we do? To be honest, I’m not sure we can do anything, at least “from above”. I think it’s a problem that needs to be tackled on the level of small communities and individuals – one person at a time.
I think of Tocqueville (not sure if this is a direct quote): “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” We ought to remind people of this!
Zach
That’s why we need to move beyond economic materialism as found in capitalism or communism, while integrating the good which is found within to a new, personalistic ethic. Certainly there are elements of capitalism which are good, and there are elements of communism which are good. The problem is the unbalanced approach both bring to reach its end. So I think we can both agree, restraint is needed, but then explanation for it is also needed, and this is where we must move beyond the ego-centric approach to the personalist, interdependent, approach which requires the personal and the communal good as both necessary and not to be fought one against the other.
As for the quote, I wonder what one means by “good” and by “great.” There are many ways one can be great without being good, and one can certainly be good without being great (humility, dying to the self, etc).
Still I think we are more in agreement on the general concern here than meets the eye, and that is itself a good — because it gives room to learn, to grow, to adapt, as needed without necessarily giving up all that has happened in the past.
Henry,
I agree we need to be able to explain the reasons the consumerist ethic needs to be restrained. I also think that is perhaps the favorite occupation of the vast majority of academics today. Academics love to criticize capitalism. There is no dearth of analysis of the problems of capitalism. Maybe intellectuals need to do a better job convincing the non-intellectual class of Americans (and the rest of the world) of their ideas, I don’t know. But there is certainly no shortage of analysis of the failures and dangers of capitalism.
I’m wondering if you can translate your first paragraph into something practical. What are you suggesting we, as a society, do exactly?
Oh and about the quote – As I understand him, Tocqueville is making the very ancient argument that you cannot truly be great without being good. He is identifying true greatness with true goodness.
Well, I would first say we need to look at things in a theological approach, and then take what we learn from that approach to Christians, and explain the faults in all forms of social policies which conflict with what we learn from our theological approach. We will find there is still something good within each social position, because error comes out of truth, and corrupts it.
So theologically, I say we look at the persons of the Trinity. Each person is fully God, and not in contradiction to either person. So in the Trinity person and nature, person and community, are one. There is no conflict between person and nature, person and community.
Now humanity, to be sure, is fallen, and it is because (as I have said before) of that fall that egoism develops the barriers between the person and society, so they view themselves in opposition to society and only as one among many warring parties trying to find a collectivist peace with society while confirming the primacy to one (the individual) or the other (the collective). A community of persons is more than a bundle of parts brought together, but a true interdependent reality, and it is why the good of one is the good of all, and the sin of one creates a social sin that effects all (notice my quote from Balthasar earlier in the year). So realizing that humanity is fallen and cannot sovle this conflict on its own, does not mean we should not strive to be in the image and likeness of God, and follow through with the law of love, not economics, as the true way forward.
And what does love do? Give of oneself for the other, to see good in the happiness of the other, not to jealously guard it for oneself. When we can reoganize society along those lines, even if imperfectly, we will have begun — and be open to God who is Love and the true healer of society. But as long as we think in terms of economic materialism, us vs them, I vs they, with an unincarnate, unsynergestic view of grace, all we will get is more and more of the selfishness and practical atheism we have seen growing in the last century.
Zach
Again, the question about greatness, what does one mean by the word great? One can’t be of great size without being good? That’s why I think the idea of “greatness” is problematic — its vague, and equivocal. I don’t like it.
On the question of women deacons, Yves Congar has some interesting things to say about the difference between an ordained diaconate (male) and a general, non-ordained diaconate (male and female) in his Lay People in the Church. He looks at the early Eastern trends.
Policraticus
The problem is he was still looking at it within a Western tradition, and the West had yet to really get into depth and understand the East. So, as with much of what he wrote on ecunemism, while good, it is also outdated. The East did view the women as being ordained, and the rites we have show this. The West saw the female diaconate differently, and non-ordained. But the East looked at what such ordination meant differently than in the West, which probably explains why they had no problem with seeing the woman as ordained (the deacon is only ordained to service; he or she cannot perform sacraments, like marriage). This is one of the many untouched areas of difference, East and West, like the theology of marriage, which might never have any resolution, even in a unified Church.
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/deaconess/ Has a lot of good references to the East on the female diaconate.
An important text relating to the ordination rites is: Ordination Rites of the Ancient Churches of East and West. It’s by Paul F. Bradshaw.
Henry,
I agree with your analysis – we need to look to first principles to see how society ought to be organized. We need to understand the nature of man and we learn the true nature of man from revelation. As someone whose name escapes me said: ‘Jesus was not only the revelation of God to Man but also of Man to Man.’ I follow you that far.
But what does it mean to reorganize society along the lines of “see[ing] good in the happiness of the other, not to jealously guard it for oneself”? How would the society be organized? Further, why do you assume society is not organized in that way now? Surely in some ways, it is?
Henry,
Finally, about the term greatness – the point is to identify greatness with goodness. I don’t think this is equivocal, rather I think it’s an argument about what greatness is. I suppose you can disagree, but I don’t see how. For: What is the greatest force in the world? God (this is a tremendous understatement). What is God? Love. What is love? Goodness. What is goodness? and so on..
But Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield explains this idea in the context of democracy here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/038zkkwf.asp
What about “great evil”?
I hope will get back to your other question — other than point out how the social contract theory combined with Hobbes, which serves as a foundation for American democratic ideals, looks at persons as individuals, not persons, and does not show any benefit from society except as a way to protect one’s own interests with some sense order.
However, until then, I really recommend my works — Person vs Individual ( http://vox-nova.com/2008/03/11/person-vs-individual/ ) and The Potter and the Clay ( http://vox-nova.com/2008/03/14/the-potter-and-the-clay-i-formed-in-the-image-of-love/ , http://vox-nova.com/2008/03/24/the-potter-and-the-clay-ii-made-in-the-image-of-the-divine-artist/ ).
Good post, Henry. While I am generally in favor of women’s ordination I am consistently disappointed with the women’s ordination movement and must reject it mainly because of its terrible ecclesiology (or lack thereof).
Henry, have you done a post in the past on the East and West’s differing theologies of marriage?
Michael,
Thanks. While I ultimately don’t think women can be ordained priests, I do think there ae far more questions which can be — and should be raised — which have not. Sadly the women who go out to “become priests” are of the type which show they have no understanding what the priesthood is about, and think of it almost like another baubble they can own. They don’t do anyone any service with that kind of thinking.
I also think, in the future, we must look at the medieval world a bit more and understand the relationship between abbesses and jurisdictional authority that was lost in the centuries after the Reformation. If we do, I think we can begin to deal with some — not all — of the concerns that some women now have.
I think the mistake is analyzing the actions of these inviduals and drawing social observations of some significance from it. A handful of people have participated in these rites and a small, equally marginal number of Catholics have accepted them as pastoral leaders. Yet tens of millions of American Catholics (an absolute majority of the laity) support the ordination of women. What is the interesting and pertinent social observation is that most Catholics concurrently wish to see women ordained but do not accept illicit actions doing such.
Now what that means, I leave to my betters to analyze. But it seems that is the social phenomena worth analyzing. Not the social meaning of two or three illicit ordinations.
There is a prior question to answer here Henry. Where are the philosophical roots of capitalism?
Michael
I’ve not really posted about it, but discussed it briefly in some of the comments, in part in the second of my series from last week (the CS Lewis post).
Differences include: the West sees the couple gives each other the sacrament, the East sees it given by the priest. The East also has a different view of remarriage as a whole (whether divorced or widow/widower): any marriage after one’s first is given a penance-like ceremony, seeing any second or third marriage is allowed for the sake of human needs, but that it would be better if the person could find a way to remain single (following Paul’s words to widows). I have my own view of how to read this (I see it as a dispensation for polygamy and polyandry, with the distinction that only one’s latest spouse is the one one is allowed to have conjugal relations with).
What is the interesting and pertinent social observation is that most Catholics concurrently wish to see women ordained but do not accept illicit actions doing such.
I think it at least means that most Catholics implicitly have a stronger ecclesiology such that they cannot accept these sorts of actions.
Kurt
I am not just looking at it by the few who have done so, but also the statements of those who have pushed for it. The way they look at the priesthood is quite different from what the priesthood is about; they see it as an authority issue and possession, instead of an issue of service and vocation.
Phil
There are many roots to capitalism. While one can point to the reformation as leading the way to its full bloom, there were certainly elements of capitalism in society before the reformation as well. Yet, the capitalism we have today has clearly taken up much of the Calvinistic framework and dropped off all the religious superstructure to end with an economic materialism which is also a natural determinism.
Henry,
I guess I don’t think evil can ever be great, not not truly great (the sense I am speaking about). Evil is never great – evil is pathetic and terrible. The idea that evil can be great comes directly from Machiavelli, I think. I concede this is probably another way to understand the word greatness, a more ancient one. If that is equivocating, I’m guilty. But I think we need to recover the use I’m speaking of – people need to remember that to be truly great you must be truly good. An example might help to explain what I’m getting at. Hitler was not a great man. Hitler was a horrible man. And I should say that I don’t mean to say that there is no such thing as evil that is out of the ordinary in degree, i.e. great evil. That sense of the world is also useful.
As to your other contention about Founding ideals of our country being individualistic and based upon the social contract ideas of Hobbes ( I’d say John Locke is far more influential) – I think you’re sort of right, but I don’t think that these ideas are anti-community or anti-person. The contrary, I think, is true.
As we’re almost getting to political philosophy, I’d wish you would pursue this line of thought with me a bit more. I don’t think you will find me disagreeing with your theology or ideas about the human person.
My specific questions are: what would your society look like ? How are you going to set up your government? How would it differ, in practice, from the American form?
Getting back to the original post, I don’t find it that strange that the womenpriests would say that their excommunication brings them closer to God if they truly believe that the Church has fallen into error not to let women be priests. They are expressing their idea, as they see it, that the Church has punished them against God’s true will.
I’m not agreeing with this viewpoint, mind you. I’m with the folks here who think that women’s ordination should be possible, but that the womenpriests are going about it the wrong way. However, I think I can imagine where they are coming from with that particular comment.
Good point, Andrew.
I agree with Andrew. I don’t really know anything about these women, but if they feel they are being called by God to be priests, then they would consider themselves to be treated badly not by the Church, but by those acting incorrectly in the name of the Church. Kind of like Joan of Arc.
Henry, I’m familiar with the argument priesthood isn’t about possession, isn’t about power etc – heck, I made it myself. But in the end, when an organization only has men in charge, then it really is about power. All decisions are made by men, no matter whether the pope calls himself a servant or not. With him lies the ultimate power. Of course, membership in the Catholic church is voluntary. It is an autocratic, hierarchical and totally-encompassing system that has rules for every aspect of life. If one doesn’t like that, one can go to a more inclusive and less strict institution, like the Episcopal church, or avoid organized religion altogether. These make-belief ordinations are a waste of time. Why give the cappa-magna-adorned archbishop an opportunity to publicly kick you out ? I don’t know how one ‘leaves’ the Catholic church in this country. In Austria, since there is a church tax, one goes to city hall and resigns membership.
But in the end, when an organization only has men in charge, then it really is about power.
I agree with this.
But in the end, when an organization only has men in charge, then it really is about power.
It could be about fidelity to Christ?
It could be about fidelity to Christ?
But, of course, an appeal to “fidelity to Christ” of “God’s will” can be merely a justification for very un-Christlike behavior. Our task, I think, should be real discernment rather than simply claiming this or that as “God’s will.”
Women out on their own wouldn’t have faired too well in the 1st century. Since Jesus didn’t exactly institute an, uh, institution or a priesthood, it seems that the argument ‘but that’s how it’s always been done’ isn’t enough. It also seems that women were more important then than they are today. I don’t think an all-male, not to mention an all-celibate-male leadership is healthy, it leaves out the feminine influence altogether. If one doesn’t want female priests, maybe an additional ‘holy order’ could be established. ‘Father knows best” simply doesn’t reflect reality. But again, since the Catholic church isn’t a democracy, and a ruling class self-perpetuates, I wouldn’t get my hopes up. I think younger women who want to be pastors simply go elsewhere. At least, judging from the typical age of the ‘womanpriests’. It’s not like the Anglicans or Lutherans are scum. I can see a re-alignment of denominations along conservative/progressive lines more so than internal changes. The Anglicans who don’t want gay or female priests become Catholics. Catholics who get kicked out or leave often become Episcopalians, and so forth.
“But, of course, an appeal to “fidelity to Christ” of “God’s will” can be merely a justification for very un-Christlike behavior.”
Agreed. I also think real discernment would take into account the 2000 year Tradition of the Church – as I’m sure you do. But it’s important to note that the argument against woman priests is not an argument advanced without evidence or reason.
Also I do have to say that I think it’s strange to understand the priesthood solely in terms of power, vaguely defined.
“Jesus didn’t exactly institute an, uh, institution or a priesthood”
Gerald, this isn’t true.
Open up any parish bulletin, and you will find plenty of women. Open up a chancellory catalogue and you will find plenty of the feminine persuassion. Distinguishing between priest and pastor wouldn’t hurt either.
…the institution we know today took centuries to take on form, and many things changed. There used to be female deacons, then there weren’t. There are changes all the time, it’s just when one doesn’t want a change that one says “Sorry we CANNOT change this, even if we wanted to.”
Of course Catholic laypeople can stand on their head and nothing will change. Pay, pray, obey :)
Catholicism’s hierarchical system isn’t very in tune with modern sensibilities – which one can view as good or bad. I’m just too much of a ‘When they said Sit down!, I stood up” type.
Well, yes most of “Father’s little helpers” are female. But the final say always lies with men. Another issue is that the Catholic church offers lousy pay, so often competence is secondary to volunteers or post-retirement part-timers.
Gerald, this isn’t true.
Actually, his statement is both true and untrue.
Open up any parish bulletin, and you will find plenty of women.
Quite easy for a man to say.
Quite easy for a man to say.
I thought a dumb monkey could figure it out myself.
Michael,
When you write, “Actually, his statement is both true and untrue. “ you are saying X = ~X. When did you take up Buddhism? (bad joke)
But yeah, the more nuanced response is yes, Jesus did establish a priesthood. You can assert this and then say that today it doesn’t exist in the exact same form. But because he said “Jesus did not establish a priesthood”, his statement is strictly not true.
For the longest time, women have been viewed as submissive to men, inferior to men – according to the brilliant logic of men, that someone who isn’t like them must be inferior. Barring them from higher education, they pronounced them uneducated. Mind you, crime statistics rather indicate that men are the cripples Celibate monks argued that for real friendship and conversation, a man was much preferable. My favorite is Aquinas arguing that women have a higher water percentage and are thus unstable, that a child only becomes female if something goes wrong (ok to abort baby boy for 40 days, baby girl for 80) – and that this might have to do something with where the wind was blowing from. Well, it doesn’t take a weatherman to tell where the wind’s blowing from today. Of course, one can still perpetuate an anachronism.
Zach – Well, no, Gerald is right, Jesus did NOT establish a “priesthood.” He called apostles. We understand the priesthood to have its roots in the calling of the apostles. In fact, the differentiation of the three-fold types of holy orders was an invention of the Church: a positive invention to be sure, but an invention nonetheless.
Jesus was unusually friendly to and open with women – many of the things he did were total no-no’s in a highly patriarchal society. Followers often damage what the founder started. Certainly, many of the theological grandees didn’t sound anywhere near as women-friendly as Jesus. Jesus broke taboos then, there is no reason as to why people who claim to follow him shouldn’t either. Of course, teleological interpretation of rules isn’t exactly the strong suit of many.
I don’t mean to be flip, but the Catechism seems to disagree with you Michael:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4T.HTM
1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the “one mediator between God and men.”15 The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, “priest of God Most High,” as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique “high priest after the order of Melchizedek”;16 “holy, blameless, unstained,”17 “by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,”18 that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.
1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. the same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood: “Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers.”19
etc.
?
I don’t disagree with anything in that passage from the Catechism. Not sure why you think what I wrote is in conflict with it.
I guess I meant specifically the next line:
“1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.”20 ”
I think it is in conflict because you said that “Jesus did NOT establish a ‘priesthood.’”
This line seems to say that Jesus made priests for his God and Father. Maybe I can’t read, I don’t know, but the Catechism is talking about Jesus’ priesthood and how the ministerial priesthood is rooted in Christ’s priesthood. If he didn’t “establish” this priesthood, what did he do?
There are at least three uses of the term “priesthood” going on here: 1) Christ’s own priesthood, 2) the priesthood of the entire faithful (which is referenced in 1546 – the Church as a whole), and 3) the sacramental priesthood of the institutional Church. All are obviously connected, but they are also distinct. When I said Jesus did not establish a priesthood, I was talking about direct establishment of #3. Jesus DID “establish” #3 insofar as he established #2 and insofar as #3 flows from #2. Which is why I said that Gerald’s original comment was both true and untrue.
Zach–it’s an equivocation on the word priesthood — you’re using it in the sense of having the power of offering the Eucharistic sacrifice and of ministering the other sacraments; Michael J. Iafrate is referring to the specific order.
Obviously, there are power issues involved, but I think it would be inappropriate to make it all about power (Simon Magus did, and there is just something about the reaction of many of the women who “get ordained” with his). It’s why I think we should look at how and why abbesses were given jurisdictional authority in the medieval world — showing such authority does not necessarily have to be connected with priestly orders.
I would say there are four kinds of uses for the priesthood, since #3 of Michael’s could be, should be, broken up into two; in the early years, what we think of the priesthood was connected with the bishop: one bishop, one community, one parish, and so they were the celebrant. It was only later when “priests” as we think of them came to their own — originally helpers to the bishop, they were put into a new use when the local communities became too large for one bishop to deal with, and they were especially helpful in the rural areas while the bishops stayed in the cities.
Kurt
I am not just looking at it by the few who have done so, but also the statements of those who have pushed for it. The way they look at the priesthood is quite different from what the priesthood is about; they see it as an authority issue and possession, instead of an issue of service and vocation.
Henry
I’m not suggesting you should not comment on whatever topic moves you. I just think the actors here are a marginal element and therefore does not say much about the state of thinking in our culture or society. The fact that tens of millions of Catholics do wish to see women as priests but have no interest in supporting irregular actions says more about our society (though as to WHAT it says, I am still unsure).
Kurt
But why do they want women to be priests? What reasoning do they give? What leads them to think it is possible? Again, much of it is still within the rhetoric of the American culture, even if they think disobedience is wrong (and a different issue).
I would say there are four kinds of uses for the priesthood, since #3 of Michael’s could be, should be, broken up into two; in the early years, what we think of the priesthood was connected with the bishop: one bishop, one community, one parish, and so they were the celebrant. It was only later when “priests” as we think of them came to their own — originally helpers to the bishop, they were put into a new use when the local communities became too large for one bishop to deal with, and they were especially helpful in the rural areas while the bishops stayed in the cities.
Yes, absolutely. And I bring this up (as well as the creation of the office of deacon) in response to those who say the Church “does not have the authority” to ordain women because it “contradicts Jesus’ intentions.” Bishops are the successors of the apostles, not priests. The Church felt it had the authority to literally invent the priesthood and the deaconate, but it cannot admit women to the invented office of the priesthood? Makes no sense.
How does one draw a distinction between ordainability to the diaconate and ordainability to the presbyterate and the episcopate, since all three are equally expressions of the one sacrament of Holy Orders, in ascending degrees of fullness?
And while this has been metioned before, what about the old devotion to Mary Priest? If Christ gives Mary His Crown to share, does He not also give her His chasuble, and His prophetic charism? (If one is going to argue for the ordainability of women, then surely this is the “traditional” way to argue).
If Christ gives Mary His Crown to share, does He not also give her His chasuble, and His prophetic charism? (If one is going to argue for the ordainability of women, then surely this is the “traditional” way to argue).
Excellent point.
Henry Karlson Says:
August 1, 2008 at 10:28 am
Kurt
But why do they want women to be priests? What reasoning do they give? What leads them to think it is possible? Again, much of it is still within the rhetoric of the American culture, even if they think disobedience is wrong (and a different issue).
Possibily. I really don’t know. But I am convinced the answer can best be found by examining these millions of lay faithful and not by projecting on to them the thinking of a handful of people intellectually distinct from them.