Womenpriests, Ecumenism and the Catholic Church: The Grace to Admit When You're Wrong

A womanpriest, a rabbi and a canon lawyer walk into a bar. When they are seated the canon lawyer turns to the rabbi and says, "The Church finds you guilty of providing sanctuary for the ordination of this womanpriest. You are hereby excommunicated from the Catholic Church and separated forever from the earthly Body of Christ."

The rabbi returns a puzzled look and says in response, "But, I'm not Catholic. What's to excommunicate?"

With this, the canon lawyer twitches a bit in his seat. "Very well," he says, regaining his composure. "As a punishment for your actions, the Church will cease all interfaith dialogue and ecumenical outreach with the Jews of the world until you have apologized."

Again, the rabbi returns a confused stare. "But, monsignor," she protests. "The Church has already declared that it alone is the one true faith, effectively eliminating any common ground for engagement and dialogue with non-Catholics. Are you proposing that the Church will do this once more simply in order to spite me?"

The canon lawyer is now almost fit to be tied. "Dear Lord!" he finally exclaims. "Is there no punishment the Church can mete out that will adequately permit Her to express Her displeasure with you?"

At this point the womanpriest, exasperated and embarrassed on behalf of her Church, suggests, "There certainly is, monsignor. You could ordain her as a priest that has to work within an organization as crazy as the Church."

Ha ha, I just made that up that little joke (I know, it shows). But do you really think I'm kidding? The punchline may be made up, but the overall backdrop to this little chestnut is already unfolding in St. Louis, MO, where two female Roman Catholic priests, their rabbi hostess and a host of Diocesan and Vatican canon lawyers may be duking things out in the weeks and months to come. On November 11, the Central Reform (Jewish) Congregation hosted the ordination ceremony of two Roman Catholic Womenpriests.

There are two issues at hand here: Roman Catholic canon law which expressly restricts priestly ordination to men alone; and the potential affront to Jewish-Catholic relations by the actions of Rabbi Susan Talve, senior rabbi at Central Reform Congregation. I think that on both counts, the Church has painted itself into an ideological corner from which it will have a difficult time establishing constructive engagement with women (Catholic and non-Catholic alike) and with non-Catholic faiths (Protestant and non-Christian alike).

On the question of the ordination of women as Catholic priests, Pope Benedict has make it crystal clear that this question is out of the question, period. In his roll as the head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 1995: "it cannot be forgotten that the Church teaches, as an absolutely fundamental truth of Christian anthropology, the equal personal dignity of men and women, and the necessity of overcoming and doing away with 'every type of discrimination regarding fundamental rights' (Gaudium et Spes, 29). It is in the light of this truth that one can seek to understand better the teaching that women cannot receive priestly ordination. A correct theology can prescind neither from one nor from the other of these doctrines, but must hold the two together; only thus will it be able to deepen our comprehension of God's plan regarding woman and regarding the priesthood -- and hence, regarding the mission of woman in the Church. If however, perhaps by allowing oneself to be conditioned too much by the ways and spirit of the age, one should assert that a contradiction exists between these two truths, the way of progress in the intelligence of the faith would be lost."

Benedict's comments were written in support of the pastoral letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, issued by Pope John Paul II in 1994, in which the late pope stated, "I declare that the Church has no authority (emphasis added) whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." However, John Paul II's claim, and Benedict's support for the doctrine that the Church has "no authority" to ordain women is specious at best. The claim that Jesus selected only male disciples is based upon a selective reading of scripture and other documents describing his teachings and those who followed him during his time in Israel. In the end, the Church establishes its own authority and to lay this inherently sexist practice at the feet of Jesus Christ is a shameful and cowardly dodge. It gives the lie to Benedict's claim that the Church stands for and supports "the equal personal dignity of men and women". Actions speak louder than words, and the Church's actions with regard to womenpriests is deafening.

Which brings us to the question of interfaith relations between the Church and non-Catholic religions and faith traditions. In reacting to Central Reform's decision to host this event, Rev. Vincent Heir, "who directs the Catholic Church's interfaith efforts in St. Louis, said the archdiocese will not participate in any more interfaith events if Central Reform Congregation is 'a leading player.'" Fair enough. I would posit, though, that members of the Jewish faith could choose to grandstand on a similar point of procedure with regard to the Church's teaching that outside the Church there is no salvation. In order for true dialogue to occur, interfaith or otherwise, all parties must regard the other or others as equals. The Church's insistence on a self-referential position of superiority to all other faiths, Christian and non-Christian alike, precludes this necessary ingredient for dialogue and relationship.

Throughout its history the Church has stubbornly held fast to its teachings, for both good and for ill. For example, in recent memory the Church provided brave and steadfast leadership on questions of economic justice and society's moral obligation to address the material needs of the poor. However, honesty compels us to acknowledge that the Church has also been on the wrong side of some of history's most epochal human rights issues:

• The Spanish Inquisition was approved by the Vatican in 1481. By the time the Vatican ordered that the Inquisition cease in 1834, approximately 5,000 "heretics" had been executed. These, along with thousands of other Inquisition victims, endured unspeakable torture in the name of Catholic purity.

• The 15th Century saw the publication of three separate papal bulls that established the foundation for the imperialistic invasion of the New World by Catholic European nations and the enslavement of indigenous peoples by their Catholic conquerors. (It should be noted that these bulls remain in good standing to this day.):
  • Dum Diversas (1452)
  • Romanus Pontifex (1455)
  • Inter Caetera (1493)

• Physicist, astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei was officially tried as a heretic in 1633 for advancing the notion of heliocentricism. As a condition of his sentence, his body of written work remained banned in its entirety until 1718, 76 years after his death. His work remained heavily censored by the Church until 1835, when all versions of Galileo's works were stricken from the Vatican's Index Librorum Prohibitorum ("List of Prohibited Books"). It wasn't until 1992 (350 years after Galileo's death) that any pope (in this case, John Paul II) apologized on the Vatican's behalf for the treatment that Galileo and his work had received from the Church.

These historical references are offered as evidence of the fact that the Church can and has reversed its teaching on matters of great social significance. The worrisome characteristic of these reversals is the fact that in each case it took the Church hundreds of years to reach the conclusion that it was wrong. The damage had already been done after such a great length of time. How many victims might have been spared torture and execution had the Church not waited to halt the Inquisition? How might the indigenous peoples of Central, Latin and South America and Africa have fared, and even fare today, had the Church not provided ecclesiastical sanction for the subjugation and enslavement of native lands and peoples? And, if the Church is wrong about the ordination of women priests and its sole role as the arbiter of human salvation, why should anyone have to wait 300 more years before the Church finally reverses its respective positions on these issues?

- Doug L.

A New Model of Priestly Ministry: Roman Catholic Womenpriests


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Roman Catholic Womenpriests.org

Central Reform Congregation, St. Louis, MO

Whacky story of the week: Female rabbi hosts "ordination" of priestettes (Ignatius Insight Scoop, November 7, 2007)

Religion and Ethics Newsweekly: Mary Magdalene (PBS.org, November 21, 2003)

The 'ordination' of 'womenpriests', by Donna O'Connor-Hunnisett, O.C.D.S. (Catholic Insight.com, October, 2005)

Divorced from Reality, by Dennis O'Brien (CommonwealMarch 11, 2005)

Pope Benedict Argues Catholic Church "Purified" Indigenous Peoples (BlackCommentator.com, June 18, 2007)

Vatican Ban on Women Priest Is Infallible, by Paul Likoudis (Challenge Magazine January, 1996)

Apostolic Letter Ordinato Sacrdotalis of John Paul II to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone (The Vatican, May 22, 1994)

Letter of Pope John Paul II to Women (The Vatican, June 29, 1995)

Watch What You Witch For

The Religious Right has been laboring (and lobbying) for decades to get "religion" back into school. By "religion" I mean "Christianity", and by "Christianity" I mean "Really Scary Radical Right Wing Christianity". The debate over providing taxpayer-funded vouchers for students to attend private, religious schools continues to rage on. The Bush White House has even established a White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives to coordinate the investment of greater sums of public money into religious ventures.

Whether or not this is all a good thing or a bad thing, it is a safe bet that Wicca is NOT what the White House and its faith-based allies were thinking of as they schemed to saturate the public square with religion. Be that as it may, there may be a new Wiccan applicant sending in grant proposals for Faith-Based funding in the near future. Maryland resident Elwood "Bunky" Bartlett hit the jackpot through the Maryland lottery recently. The devout Wiccan has since pledged to use a portion of his new found fortune to open up a Wicca school. Wicca, of course, is a Pagan religious practice derived from ancient Celtic and Druidic belief systems. It has been wrongly characterized as Satanic for centuries by mainstream religious authorities, and persecuted as such. Although American communities are no longer in the official practice of burning heretics at the stake, to this day there is a decidedly negative backlash against Wicca and other Pagan practices on the part of conservative, evangelical Christians.

Bunky Bartlett: WBAL TV 11


However, Mr. Bartlett's actions may mark a growing acceptance of Wicca in the United States. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs recently approved of the use of Wiccan symbols on veterans' headstones. Now, instead of atheists and monotheists monopolizing the argument over whether to take the phrase "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, Bunky and the Wiccans can join the fray and argue that the phrase should read "under the gods and goddesses." Even if they don't win that argument, I hope they get a fair chunk of George W.'s faith-based money. Blessed Samhain! Happy Halloween!

-Doug L.

Celtic Harpists


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

"Study Finds Worst Performance in Conservative Christian Schools", by Diana Jean Schemo (CommonDreams.org, July 15, 2006)

Pagan Studies.org

Celtic Druidism (Religious Tolerance.org)

Chalice Centre.net

New Order of Druids (DruidCircle.net)

Wicca: A Neopagan, earth-centered religion (ReligiousTolerance.org)

The Real Meaning of Halloween, by Starhawk (Washington Post OnFaith, October 30, 2007)

Samhain- The Eve of All Hallow (Ireland for Visitors.com)

Rudy Giuliani for Prez? Don't Hold Your Breath

What kind of Catholic is Rudy Giuliani? The rare kind who apparently believes that as an anti-government insurrectionist, Jesus Christ should not only have been flogged and crucified, but waterboarded as well.

Now, of course, if you were to ever ask Rudy if Jesus Christ should have been waterborded by the Romans, he would likely give you his patented Giuliani contemptuous response, making reference to how he is a life-long Catholic, Jesus is more important to him than any of his wives, past present and future, yadda, yadda, yadda. Fair enough. BUT, put Rudy in the shoes of Pontius Pilate, and you'd likely see Jesus strapped to the water board on His way to the whipping post, and finally the cross.

What do I base any of this on? Why, Rudy's own comments on the subject. This past week, asked to define whether or not waterboarding amounts to torture, Rudy bravely equivocated, stating, "It depends on how it's done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it." So, based upon Rudy's worldview of who the good guys and bad guys are (United States= Good, "Islamofacists" and Enemy Combatants= Bad), waterboarding might be fine. For example, if it's done by Americans in the name of the War on Terror, or by Roman Centurions who are "interrogating" the alleged leader of an anti-government insurrection movement. Rudy didn't just equivocate as to the question of who, he even said that it depends on HOW waterboarding is done before you can classify it as torture. So, just to clarify things for Hizzoner: the circumstances of why, where and to whom waterboarding is done may vary on a case-by-case basis, but the how never does. I refer you to the easy-to-read illustrated chart (above) provided free of charge. Please memorize its contents so that you never have to give such a lame and evasive answer to such an elementary question ever again.

Rudy's comment about how whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture "depends upon who does it" is at least consistent with his overall selective approach to personal morality and accountability. For example, as a former federal prosecutor it is hard to fathom that Rudy has any sympathy for criminals as lowly as pedophiles. True in general, except for when it comes to Monsignor Alan J. Placa, his special priest friend of over thirty years. Never mind that the Catholic Church has ordered Monsignor Placa to cease performing his priestly duties while the molestation charges against him are under investigation. His personal loyalty to Rudy means that even though his high-profile gig with the Church is on hold, there is always a place for him at Giuliani Partners. It sounds like a really plum job, but what about his vow of poverty? Then again, if he couldn't keep his vow of celibacy...

With regard to the charges facing, and his own association with Fr. Placa, Rudy had this to say: "We give some of the worst people in our society presumption of innocence and the benefit of the doubt." Sure, Rudy. If they are Catholic priests who molest kids, absolutely, right? "Enemy Combatants" held indefinitely without charge at Gitmo? Fuggedaboutit.

So here we have a Catholic candidate for the Republican presidential nomination who:

• Supports gay rights;

• Is pro-choice;

• Is in favor of interrogation techniques that constitute torture; and

• Sees nothing wrong with his continued association with an accused pedophile who has been suspended by the Church until further notice.

Which brings me to the American Catholic Church. Of the four policy positions listed above, I actually happen to share the first two with Rudy. I also happen to know that the Catholic Church shares none of these. Even so, of the four of these, which position of Giuliani's has him in hot holy water with at least one American Catholic bishop? You guessed it: he is pro-choice. I point this out not to argue whether or not one position or the other is right or wrong. I point it out to ask: is this how narrow the agenda of the American Catholic Church has become, that it will only rouse itself to publicly speak out about a political candidate's position on abortion while ignoring his position on torture? Wasn't Jesus Christ a victim of state-sponsored torture? Why in God's name isn't there any official condemnation of Giuliani's pro-torture stance on the part of the Church? Is the Church's pro-life agenda limited purely to being anti-abortion? Is serving as a vehicle for the conservative political agenda now as, or more, important than preaching and living the Gospel? Or have some conservative Catholic leaders managed to conflate the two?

Some American Catholic leaders may apply the term pro-life more liberally than others, but the fact is that the conservative movement has grown in strength within both the Catholic clergy as well as the laity. Over the past twenty-to-thirty years, conservative Catholics have mobilized into a highly influential voting bloc, and are also counted among those who shape as well as make public policy. Five of the 9 members of the U.S. Supreme Court are now Roman Catholic. The bishop of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC presides over the annual Red Mass to inaugurate each new Supreme Court session. Conservative Catholic publications such as First Things and Crisis are highly influential voices, both in official Washington and across the country. Why, with American Catholics enjoying such prominent positions of power and influence, it is hard to fathom why some of their brethren continue to conduct themselves like minority members of the lunatic fringe with a persecution complex.

This is all to ask, what happened to my Church? The Church of my youth thundered against the immorality of funding a nuclear arms race at the expense of impoverished children and families. The Church of my youth boldly asserted that the Gospel of Jesus Christ proclaims a preferential option for the poor, a summons to all people to treat the needs and concerns of the poor as their own. And now? When it isn't liquidating diocesan assets in order to pay for sex abuse settlements, its bishops limit their moral outrage to publicly inveighing against pro-choice politicians and threatening to withhold communion. I haven't heard of any such threat regarding Giuliani's position on torture, or even his support for the Iraq War which the American bishops opposed.

And so, shameless, mendacious politicians like Rudy Giuliani can crow about the merits of torture, equivocate about what actually constitutes torture, and the most the American Catholic Church does in response is to condemn his tacit support for a woman's Constitutionally-protected right to have an abortion. How so truly sad I am, for my Church and for my country. In recent memory, the American Catholic Church was a voice of moral authority on a broad range of social and moral issues, and was beholden to no party or politician. Nowadays, official Church teaching often seems to resemble a dogma chasing its own infallible tail. At a time in our history when true moral authority is sorely needed from both our religious and political leaders, it is found to be grievously lacking in both.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE (UPDATED, November 3,2007):

"Let's drink some Mountain Dew and go waterboarding!" (Jon Stewart, Comedy Central's The Daily Show, November 1, 2007)

Rudy's BFF: Fr. Placa, or "Priest F"


Voice of the Faithful

What is the Red Mass (History News Network, October 4, 2005)

NY Times, AP reported Donohue's criticism of Edwards campaign bloggers -- but ignored Donohue's own controversial comments and inconsistent outrage (MediaMatters.org, February 7, 2007)

"Rudy Awakening." (WashingtonMonthly.com, October 24, 2007)

"Rudy on Waterbording." (WashingtonMonthly.com, October 25, 2007)

"Ex-Partner of Giuliani May Face Charge." (Washington Post, March 31, 2007)

"Neocon Catholic leaders nurtured by GOP and Conservative Philanthropy on their heels", by Bill Berkowitz (MediaTransparency.org, September 23, 2007)

CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described (ABCNews.go.com, November 18, 2005)

Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, October 2003)

In Brazil, Pope to Face A Church Losing Hold (Washington Post, May 9, 2007)

Instruction on Certain Aspects of the "Theology of Liberation", by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 6, 1984

Liberation Theology.org

Just Peace.org: Seven Sermons of Oscar Romero for Lent

Ann Coulter: Jesus Christ's Happy Little Helper

The Christian faith teaches that the perfection of the self and salvation of the soul come from total supplication to Jesus Christ through His instrument on Earth. Now, each Christian denomination likes to claim the title of said instrument, but let's be honest, we all know who the real tool is: Ann Coulter. As if her mission to hate in the name of Jesus Christ and the Republican Party aren't admirable enough, she is now apparently on a mission to perfect Jews, i.e, convert them to Christianity. Leah Kauffman of Obama Girl fame is even on board.

Leah Kauffman: Perfect Me

So, let's hear it for the bestest little example of Gospel-based love and inclusion ever produced by the Republican Hate Machine. Anyone else out there interested in hopping on the Federal Conversion Express for an express conversion with Ann Coulter? I didn't think so.

-Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

On CNBC's The Big Idea, Coulter said that "we" Christians "just want Jews to be perfected" (MediaMatters.org, October 10, 2007)

Jews Not Perfect Enough for Ann Coulter (Gothamist.com, October 11, 2007)

Come On, People, Ann Coulter Needs Some Attention! (HuffingtonPost.com, October 11, 2007)

Free To Be You and Me (and Us)

Interfaith people- couples, families- we're special. Sure, we don't like to crow about it, but let's face it- we made some unique and bold choices to be in the relationships we're in. We like breaking new ground. For the most part we come from families who were expecting to pass on familiar traditions, religious and cultural, for us to in turn pass on to our own children. Instead, we have broken the link in the chain of traditional purity, eschewing orthodoxy in order to pursue something else that spoke to us. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I think it's safe to generally say that for those of us in interfaith relationships we saw, and see, value in relationships that transcend theology and dogma. I am personally very happy to see Christians and Jews dating and marrying in greater numbers. I think that there is real power in current generations of young people refusing to perpetuate ancient animosities and hurts, refusing to see either religion as flawed or "less than", refusing to let differences in religious heritage and upbringing to stand in the way of a loving human relationship.

However... the tug of tradition and familial ties is strong. We may be perfectly happy in our interfaith relationship, and still feel the pang of longing for something more familiar and comforting. At the same time we are confronted with the question of identity: Who are you? If I am no longer intending to raise my children in the Catholic tradition, what exactly is my plan? Who or what am I? If I don't want them to be exclusively Jewish either, what alternative do I propose? Who will they be? I could ask the rabbi at the neighborhood synagogue to split the difference- throw in some Gospel readings every so often, but don't worry about serving communion. Or maybe the neighborhood parish priest wouldn't mind reciting the Sh'ma at the beginning of Mass and adding a Torah reading to the service. Right. I'm sure I'd get real far with either of these.

Nor should I. I mean, I made the choice to pursue a non-traditional life path as far as faith and religion are concerned. There's nothing about my right to make that choice that obligates traditional faith communities to rearrange themselves to accommodate what I am looking for. That's on me. That's on us.

The Good News (technically not the Gospel variety, but obviously related) is that we are not alone, neither in our choice to marry outside of our respective faiths, nor in our pursuit of worship space and worship experience that does combine various aspects of our traditions. A wonderful example of this pluralistic approach in action is The New Seminary in New York City. The seminary's motto is, "Never instead of, always in addition to." The basic approach of the seminary appears to be one of teaching respect and reverence for all religions as legitimate paths to God. Seminarians are not asked to convert to a faith that is not their own, or to otherwise leave the faith they were raised in in order to enroll. The seminary is not about creating a pan-religion amalgam that homogenizes all religions into one mega-faith. Instead, the New Seminary simply refuses to demand that seminarians make the false choice between this or that faith, or to otherwise see more value in one faith and less value or "truth" in all others. The seminary states that "We believe that it is not the form of religious practice that is important, but the spiritual intent that underlies it. We recognize that God is in all things and in ALL people." And as I wrote in an earlier post, "it is no irreverence or betrayal to participate fully in the rituals and sacraments of faith traditions different than one's own."

The work of the New Seminary should be celebrated and applauded by those of us in interfaith relationships. The most threatening aspect of our relationships, to religious institutions, to family members, and even to ourselves sometimes, is the fear that nothing of our faith traditions and heritage will be passed on to our children because we're too busy dancing around the notion that you can only be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or whatever other faith, but you cannot be both. For what it's worth, I'm with the New Seminary on this one- yes, you can.

Free to Be You and Me (Title Track)

Bottom Line: Who are we? I believe that as interfaith couples we are called to be trail blazers and examples to the wider community. We are called to move beyond the fear-driven false choice of either/or. Self-segregating ourselves within our traditional faith communities has obviously not resulted in a more harmonious worldwide human community. To demonstrate that we have the courage of our convictions we need to see the value in truly interfaith worship, in forging new paths towards being "both" in our respective households.

Yes, our respective faith traditions are beautiful and have their own unique character and history. However, this only has real value as far as our families and communities are concerned when we demonstrate how our unique faith and cultural heritages can also make room in our homes for our spouses traditions as well. We celebrate our spouses' traditions not instead of our own, but in addition to these. In doing so we serve as role models of peace, humility and respect for our children and for society in general. We keep what is good and beautiful about our traditions leaving behind the tendency to use these as an excuse to keep ourselves separate from others who are different. "Never instead of, always in addition to." Shalom.

-Doug L.

The Who: Who Are You?


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

On Interfaith, by Rabbi Roger Moss (NewSeminary.org)

Bad Girl's Guide: Inter-Faith Relationships (Vixentales.blogspot.com, September 13, 2007)

Am I a Person or a Jew? (Jewish Atheist blog, July 30, 2007)

Questions and Answers About Raising a Child in a Multi-Religious Family, by Racheline Maltese (Associated Content.com, June 6, 2006)

Debating The Year of Living Biblically (Slate.com)

Interfaith Observations, Pt. 1 (Way Is Vast blog, October 10, 2007)

"Faith space opens: Old Union facility promotes interfaith worship." (The Stanford Daily, October 9, 2007)

How Does God Speak in Interfaith America? (Mainstream Baptist blog, October 8, 2007)

God Big Enough to Embrace All, by Bishop John Shelby Spong (Washington Post On Faith, April 13, 2007)

The Center for Progressive Christianity

Tikkun Magazine

Network of Spiritual Progressives