The Only Female Cleric at the Synod

[Roguish]

The fraternal delegates who represent other Christian churches can make interventions in the synod aula and participate in small group discussions, but they cannot vote. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has a delegate, as do ecclesial organizations like the World Lutheran Federation, the World Communion of Reformed Churches and the World Methodist Council

Thanks for pointing that out. Still, I feel like we’re being tested for our willingness to tolerate stuff that goes flagrantly against established doctrine. Obviously there’s a certain shock value to sending a woman in priestly garb to a meeting of RC bishops. So why do that? Why did the synod organizers and the WCC agree on this girl to be a representative? I say it’s a test. And it’s smart too, because it’s pretty safe this way: if it blows up in the synod’s face they can blame it on the “weird Hussite girl” or on the WCC. If it doesn’t blow up (as apparently it hasn’t), fine, then we’ve inched another inch closer to putting female ordination on the table.

Now, one could argue: Hey, it’s a synod, it’s okay to have different points of view represented, even if they are very different points of view. But there’s something amiss with this reasoning. It’s obvious that the Hussite “priestess” takes no interest whatsoever in considering the RC position that female ordination is out of the question. She’s not there because she’s willing to consider the possibility that maybe female ordination is indeed not right. She’s there to give visible (and verbal) evidence to the established fact of her “ordination”. So the “ecumenism” and “dialogue” are purely a one-way street, with the RC Church at the receiving end, and (in this case) a Hussite priestess simply there to represent a radically different idea of what the priesthood is.

P.S. Sadly it seems to be the RCC’s trend to “cordially invite” those who behave or act in ways that are grossly contrary to RCC teaching, to come and “enter into dialogue”. There are “qualified pro-choicers” on the Pontifical Academy for Life these days, for example. What’s next? The RCC will invite SSM couples to synods on the family? (And that analogy is not a stretch. It’s precisely the same as inviting a “priestess” to discuss the possibility of a female deaconate in the RCC.)

P.P.S. Another way of putting this (my earlier P.S.) is that it seems that the RCC is giving up more and more on being a firm teacher, and giving in more and more to the idea that She must “learn from everybody”, even (or especially?) from those who’s opinions and lifestyle are obviously at odds with the RCC’s teachings so far. It’s as if the Church is looking to learn from the world, instead of learning from God and teaching the world.

P.P.P.S. I wonder how many young nuns are at the synod, and I’d be interested to hear what they have to say about the Hussite lady.

 

[PickyPicky]

P.P.P.S. I wonder how many young nuns are at the synod, and I’d be interested to hear what they have to say about the Hussite lady.

I understand seven Catholic women religious are at the Synod.

 

[PickyPicky]

I think you are indulging in conspiracy theories. It is perfectly normal for mainstream churches to invite observers from other Christian bodies to their gatherings. Some of these bodies have woman ministers. That’s all this is.

 

[Roguish]

Of course having observers is normal, but she’s not an observer. She is participating on some sort of “panel” about female deaconesses, and she has already addressed the synod with an “intervention”. That’s not observation.

Besides, even if she was an observer only, you’re conveniently ignoring my point that in her case the “dialogue” can only be a one-way street. There is no way she’s going to consider the possibility that the RC is right to limit the priesthood to men.

See, this is like inviting a soccer player to a synod of field hockey clubs. Sure they’re both ball-games, but the rules of field hockey are only negotiable within certain limits. For example, you only touch the ball with your stick. Someone who believes firmly that it’s okay to kick the ball with one’s foot, doesn’t belong at a synod discussing field-hockey rules. So if the organizer of a synod on field-hockey rules invites a soccer player to join in, it is hardly a “conspiracy theory” to think that that organizer has a bit of a hidden agenda. There just isn’t any other point to inviting the soccer player.

Same with a “priestess” at an RC synod. Catholicism as we’ve known it (and EO, and OO) limit the priesthood to men for profound theological reasons. Inviting someone who obvious disagrees fundamentally with one of the Church’s most basic and visible principles, is a suspicious move, to put it mildly.

 

[PickyPicky]

She is participating on some sort of “panel” about female deaconesses, and she has already addressed the synod with an “intervention”. That’s not observation

It is, however, perfectly normal for observers at the Synod of Bishops.

 

[GKMotley]

Which, it seems, is suspicious to some minds. Someone is up to something, perhaps.

 

[PickyPicky]

Which, it seems, is suspicious to some minds. Someone is up to something, perhaps

I think we should be told.

 

[GKMotley]

Explicitly.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Why is that even being discussed at the Youth Synod?

Because the Church is losing with regards to atracting and retaining youth. They need to try something new and contemporary if they hope to improve those numbers. That is why. Many may disagree with the strategy, though.

 

[QwertyGirl]

How are today’s numbers working?

Everything I read says youth are leaving the Church at pretty high rates. They have reasons. They aren’t just lazy or a-spiritual. I suspect the wise people in the Church are trying to figure this out.

I don’t intend to argue with you about this. As I stated, there are many who don’t agree with some of this stuff. That isn’t a big revelation.

 

[Start]

Quality not quantity.

 

[exnihilo]

I think you are indulging in conspiracy theories. It is perfectly normal for mainstream churches to invite observers from other Christian bodies to their gatherings. Some of these bodies have woman ministers. That’s all this is.

Having observers may be common, and in that sense normal. But it really doesn’t seem normal to me to invite groups who utterly reject your religion to conferences on your religion. What is the purpose of all this anyway?

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Why is that even being discussed at the Youth Synod?

Because the Church is losing with regards to atracting and retaining youth. They need to try something new and contemporary if they hope to improve those numbers. That is why. Many may disagree with the strategy, though.

I think the youth are leaving because the Church has been teaching watered down theology, etc.

This past Monday, I attended for the first time a lecture on St. Thomas Aquinas at the new Dominican parish in Philadelphia. It was the 5th of 5 weekly lectures. It was PACKED with 20 somethings. From what I understood from some who were there, every week more & more young people showed up.

It was so successful, that they are going to make it year round thing (with perhaps a few weeks off in between each series). It was also so successful, that the Dominicans decided to have a Halloween event for the young people and empty nesters.

• they are going to have a Vigil, which will be accompanied by three talks by the local Sisters of Life.
• then, there will be Catholic music
• followed by light snacks - whatever people who show up bring.

This is what the young are looking for. They love authentic Catholic history, theology and tradition.

We don’t need more 1960s & 1970s folk songs and watered down theology. The young people dig Thomas Aquinas and love this deep philosophy and deep theology.

Look how successful the Steubenville conferences & SEEK conferences are. College campuses with FOCUS ministries have thriving Catholic Campus ministries. This is what the youth want.

God Bless

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The youth are sick of the 60s and 70s approach because that is the generation of their parents and grandparents. To be honest, the only people nowadays who are jazzed about that are the old radical types who are still doing tired shtick like protesting at the annual Blue Angels air show.

The youth will do anything that is different and uniquely “theirs”. I’m not surprised that many are into Aquinas, as he’s the kind of deep-thoughts guy that your average high school and college student who has long discussions about life can relate to. It doesn’t necessarily mean that all those young people are going to accept every traditional teaching of the Church. Some will and some won’t.

It also doesn’t mean that every young person in the country wants that approach. Philadelphia is an extremely Catholic city and a generally well-educated city. You go to some cities in the Midwest that are neither, and the kids there may well be more into social justice and playing contemporary Christian rock at Mass than they are about pondering Aquinas. I’m also pretty sure that just about any Catholic event in Philadelphia would fill the pews because I’ve never seen one that wasn’t drawing a big crowd there, regardless of what it was.

 

[billsannie]

I don’t see the big problem here. Non-Catholic clergy have been observing and speaking at Bishops’ councils at least since I was a fair-haired little girl, which was a very long time ago. Catholic clergy have done and do reciprocate. It’s never changed either side in any noticeable way, and I doubt that anyone expects it to do so. It’s simply a gesture of mutual respect.

And by the way, the correct job title is “priest”, not “priestess”.

 

[Roguish]

And by the way, the correct job title is “priest”, not “priestess”.

And the correct gender of an incumbent of the priestly office is “male”, not “female”.

(Or is that up for discussion, 62 posts into the thread? If it is, the synod has us I right where I suspect where it wants us.)

 

[Roguish]

They need to try something new and contemporary if they hope to improve those numbers.

They need to try something old. Trying something new has been an ongoing experiment for about 50 years now, and it hasn’t worked out particularly well. (But I guess I’m painting my opinions with my broad brush again – silly me.)

By the way, where I l ive the impulse toward modernization of religion (be it RC or other) does not exist. It is alien to the religious spirit here. The idea that religion can and should be modernized, is utterly Western. Interestingly in the West nobody seems to be aware of this; it is an undetected assumption that all this “dialogue” and “getting with the times” is a global trend. It isn’t. Where religion is concerned, it is strictly a Western trend.

In spite of this, the RCC purports to be a global religion. And indeed She is in the sense that She’s present nearly everywhere. Yet, when it comes to setting course for the future, She seems to sail by Western winds exclusively. Where I live this Western bias is the thing most likely to disenchant its current members, as it has disenchanted me.

How does this relate to the priestess at the synod? Well, it would simply be unthinkable in any of the other great religious traditions of the world. The idea alone would be considered absurd.

The RCC seems to think She’s behind the times and needs to catch up – a spirit that has pervaded much of her governance for half a century already. But the reality is different: the RCC is in fact the the only major tradition that has been attempting to “update” Herself to “better fit” with the modern era. All the other traditions (e.g. OO, EO, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) are sticking to their guns – which is to say, to their traditional teachings.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Not really. Islam clearly has traditionalists and modernists just like Catholicism. So does Judaism.

If you like traditional and think it’s the answer, that’s a valid view/ opinion. Not everybody is going to agree with you. Deal with it.

 

[Roguish]

Not really. Islam clearly has traditionalists and modernists just like Catholicism. So does Judaism.

Tis_Bear, show me any sort of college or meeting of muslims or Hindus that are “dialoguing” with female imams/priests. (And I could go on about many other issues, but I think you get the point.)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

They may not be discussing female priests, but they are concerned with other things women do such as wearing Western clothing, driving and going to school, that are every bit as alarming to them as female priests apparently are to you.