I can't believe I'm writing this, but God Bless E.J. Dionne!
"I worry that Pope Benedict sees liberal Catholics primarily as products of the worst excesses of the '60s and not as people who are genuinely grateful for the Catholic tradition and the Church's efforts since Pope John to interpret it anew for our times. Many of us know that modernity urgently needs criticism and agree with the new Pope on the importance of asserting that truth exists. We remain Catholic precisely because we think that the Church's emphasis on the sacramental and the communal provides a corrective to a culture that overemphasizes the material and lifts up the narrowest forms of individualism.But we also think that not all that is new is bad. Our Church was soft on slavery. It was terribly slow to embrace democracy. It still does not seem to understand that the desire of women for power in the Church reflects legitimate--and, yes, Christian--claims to justice, not weird ideological enthusiasms. Those who say that change in the Church is simply capitulation to a flawed culture must explain whether they really think the Church would be better off if it had not come to oppose slavery, endorse democracy, and resist anti-Semitism and other forms of religious intolerance."
Yep. Yep. And more Yeps until I can't say "Yep" any longer because I've lost my voice.
I wish I could read the entire article, but as I have no subscription to The New Republic, I cannot. (If anyone out there would like to share for this one special occasion, send me an email.) Of course, I'm sure that more than a few of you will automatically dismiss Dionne's words because they're found on Sully's site. Because he's been caterwauling over the past couple of days about how betrayed he feels at the election of Pope Benedict and you find said caterwauling either a. funny b. pathetic or c. heretical. But please do realize that for every conservative who's lauded the election of Pope Benedict, that there are a few of us conservatives out here who aren't so pleased. Sully is our lightning rod, for better or worse, and he's been taking the hits for us. Well, no longer. No matter what excuse you find to dismiss his writings over the past few days, you should know there are a few of us who---gasp!---actually agree with what he's written. We've just been keeping quiet because we don't feel like being called heretics or apostates. Neither do we want to be accused of not really being conservatives because, as the conventional wisdom of the blogosphere has been proclaiming over the past couple of days, if this pope doesn't do it for you, well, you must be a liberal. He's pissing off all the right people, he must be great!
Well, pardon my French, but fuck off.
I have really had it over the past couple of days with what's been spewed from Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Take it or leave it. What'd you expect? An Episcopalian Pope? You disagree with the Pope? How dare you! You're obviously not for doctrinal truth but instead are guilty of egotism! You're a moral relativist! You think you know better than the Church! You heretic! Your conscience is nothing compared to the Church Approved Truth (TM). We don't want your kind here! I can access the Vatican website, I've read the documents. Furthermore, since I can cut and paste from these documents to suit my arguments, I'm now a theologian of the first order. I am more than justified in lecturing you on the requirements of the Faith and I say you're not worthy! And so on and so forth. I have never felt so personally attacked even though the attacks weren't directed at me personally. These attacks were directed at "my kind," as if to suggest that since Pope Benedict wasn't what I had hoped and prayed for as the leader of my church, I am suddenly in league with the kind of Catholic who advocates a carefully orchestrated attack on St. Peter's Basilica to rip all the art off the walls because the proceeds could be better used to feed the poor. I'm in league with those who believe that Liberation Theology really, honestly and truly, is the way to go. I'm in league with those who believe the Church should approve on-demand abortion and euthanasia.
To put it bluntly, you people should get bent.
Would you like to know the main reason I wish we had a different pope? There are many things I would like to see changed within the Church, but I know won't happen. That's fine for me. Those are issues that should be raised every now and again, because that's what should happen. Thought is a good thing, otherwise God would have made us sheep. But there is one issue that I believe must be changed immediately. It believe a change in this bit of doctrine is crucial for the survival of the Church. My problem with Pope Benny is that he has already written and declared that this one issue will not be addressed during his papacy. He believes that the Church should never address it. This one issue that Pope Benny and I disagree about is the role of women in the Church. And it's not a personal issue for me in that I want female priests because sexual equality is the standard of western society. I want women to be priests so that people are not dependent upon the availablity of a man to receive the sacraments.
Did you get that? This isn't about me being an "egotist." This isn't about my being "morally relativist." This is about the much ballyhooed shortage of priests that still---ahem---exists even if we do have a new pope. This is about the practical ramifications of this shortage of priests.
To explain, I went to a Catholic all-girls high school. This high school was run by the order of the Servants of Mary. We had a convent attached to said high school, and by the time I attended the school, the convent was not a thriving place, but rather a nursing home for aged nuns. Most of these nuns were, obviously, pre-Vatican II nuns and they were cared for, mostly, by younger nuns and a small nursing staff of one person. These older nuns felt the need to take the sacraments daily. For that to happen, you needed a priest who was willing to drive to the convent to deliver them.
Normally, this wasn't a problem. There was a small cadre of priests who came to the convent regularly, but when one dropped out, and another could not take their place it was a daunting task to find a priest who could come to the convent to say mass. Or listen to confessions. Or, in a few rare cases, deliver the Annointing of the Sick. All of these sacraments must be delivered by priests, and if there are none to be found because they're all off on retreat, or at a conference, or they have other duties to attend to, who suffers then, I ask you people who are so interested in banging the sacramental drum? Why, it's the nuns. In this example, they're the ones who were consistenly asked to take one for the Catholic team.
Ever seen a nun panic because she's called every priest she knows and no one's available to come out to the convent to say mass? I have. It's not a pretty thing. Nuns are supposed to be steady, stable creatures. When a nun freaks out, well, let's just say that it's shocking. This particular nun knew how important it was to the older nuns to be able to take the sacraments daily. She knew how crucial they felt the sacraments were to their faith. And she was going to have to let these women down because there was nothing she could do about it. There were no priests to be found. Nor could she deliver them. She was a nun. A priest was needed. It didn't matter that she'd taken the same vows of poverty, chastity and obedience when she devoted herself to the Church. It didn't matter that she was an Ecumenical Minister of the Eucharist and could deliver the Body and Blood of Christ during Mass. She didn't have a penis, hence she couldn't deliver the sacraments to women who so desperately wanted and needed them.
The "doctrinal truth" of the priesthood only being reserved for men doesn't really cut it in this situation, does it?
But there are plenty who say it would be "radical" to have women priests. That this violates a tradition that was established by Christ himself when he "chose" male apostles. Never mind that Mary and Mary Magdalene were just as devoted to Him as the apostles were. It's not relevant to the discussion. Surprisingly enough, though, despite their sexual defects, they were there, on the day he was crucified, walking up to Golgotha with him, weeping at the foot of the cross, never once abandoning Him as He suffered through a slow and painful death. These women didn't run and hide and deny their Savior like the Apostles did because they weren't too chickenshit to admit they knew, loved, and followed The Man. But they don't count. Never mind that they were the ones who found someone to bury their Lord and Savior to follow the demands of their faith when all the apostles were hiding. They don't count. Never mind that they were the ones who found the tomb was empty three days after Jesus' crucifixion, something the apostles were too chicken to do. It's completely coincidental that they were the finders of this fact because they were just there to pray. They don't count. Women didn't count.
And they still don't count. All Catholic women---lay or clerical---are to follow the lessons of the Virgin. We're supposed to submit, like she did, to the demands of our faith, because we're the better sex. We give life. We're more compassionate. We keep the men from killing one another. And even if you're a nun and aren't allowed to give life, you're supposed to model your life after the Virgin anyway, because you have the same biology that she did; you're just modeling your life after different qualities she possessed. This shared biology makes a nun capable of serving our Lord, but not capable enough to deliver sacraments and preach the Gospels. For that you have to be a man.
Now, think of all the priests you've ever known. I'm sure some were fantastic. Ive known a few of those, too. Some, however, probably were really bad at their jobs. I've known boozer priests, one of whom once took my confession on a Saturday afternoon and breathed liquor fumes on me from the other side of the screen. I knew a priest once who, in direct contradiction to his vow of poverty, drove a Jaguar and had a marked taste for the finer things in life. He married one of my brothers and when offered a glass of wine or a beer at this brother's rehearsal dinner, snorted loudly and condescendingly at the choices presented and then chewed me out for not having any scotch on hand, wondering aloud if my parents were just being cheap or if they honestly didn't know that's what he drank. I've known priests who weren't exactly comfortable delivering a homily, so they skipped it altogether. I've known priests who let their deacon do all the heavy lifting at mass. I've known priests who had no issues betting on Notre Dame games, or who cut mass short because they wanted to watch a football game. The priest who married the husband and myself is one of the most gossipy creatures God ever created, and still, even though I haven't seen him in going on ten years, talks about me behind my back, and has no hesitations about asking my family if we're divorced...yet. But, you say, priests are human. They're allowed their faults. Well, ok. I'll buy that. But, how, exactly, with all these flaws in mind, are they more qualified to preach the Gospels and to deliver the sacraments than a woman?
Why is that, exactly?
Give me one good reason why priests should always and forever be male, knowing full well that I will not accept Church Dogma or the reason "that it's always been this way," as a good reason. The Church has no issues moving away from dogmatic teachings and you all know it. Mass only used to be said in Latin. The Church moved away from that. The Church actively advocated anti-Semitism. The Church moved away from that. The Church used to think slavery was fine and dandy. The Church moved away from that. The Church used to sell plenary indulgences, guaranteeing that if you donated a large sum of money to the Church, you could buy your way out of hell. The Church moved away from that. The Church used to preach that a mother's life was expendable, whereas the life of her child was not. The Church moved away from that. The Church used to wage wars in the name of Christianity and the defense of the Papal States. Now the Church believes there are very few moral wars. The Church found the excuses for these moves in Church Dogma. The same dogma that tells us we cannot have women priests.
Please realize that the Church can do anything it wants to do and it can find an excuse in two thousand years worth of teachings to justify their actions. "Doctrinal Truth" is subjective, in other words. Hence, dogma as the only reason you can hand forth justifying that women cannot be priests isn't going to cut it for me. It's just not. Times have changed. It does not mean the world is going to end or that the Church will end if they decide to allow women to become priests. It simply means that the world has changed and that the Church has recognized that fact. Women priests could, conceivably, solve a lot of practical, everyday problems within the Church, the first and foremost being that they would be allowed to deliver the sacraments to people who wanted to receive them. How that could be seen as a bad thing, I don't know, but I'm sure somebody is just dying to tell me.
Posted by Kathy at April 22, 2005 05:30 PM