From the article:
"In follow up comments to the Union of Superiors General (UISG) — the women religious whose dialogue with the pope prompted him to call the study commission on the women's diaconate —in Rome on May 10, the pope said that the individual members of the commission will pursue studies on their own but remained ambiguous about whether he would call to commission back together."
"I am not afraid of studies," Francis said aboard the plane. "
"...Splitting historical hairs is not what Francis' papacy is known for. Back in 2015, the pope told the bishops at the synod on the Family "that the Church should not be a stuffy 'museum of memories,' but have the courage to change if that was what God wanted."
"...Francis' boundless energy and dedication to peace and justice stands in stark contrast to the dithering way he is handling question of women deacons in his own church. His passionate cause for unity among churches and with people of other faiths, it seems, stops short of the women of his own church who are asking simply for more inclusive ways to serve."
"....But rather than treat the issue of women deacons with the same urgency that he treats so many matters of justice, Francis has communicated — like so many popes before him — that women’s legacy of leadership requires further questioning, and their participation in ministry alongside men could be a dangerous step and, therefore, must be indefinitely stalled."
As I have said before, I don't really have a dog in this fight, since I don't want to be a deacon myself. However I do support the women who feel called to that ministry, and to whom this feels like stonewalling.
Decisions have consequences, even, or especially, the decisions which aren't made. One consequence of this one is to reinforce the perception that the Church and its leadership don't really believe that... “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
ISTM that Mason thinks, and Francis doesn't, that women holding church offices is a matter of justice. As long as he looks at it from the standpoint of the office instead of the women, he won't get it. Remember, this is a pope who is trying to convince a Church (that is fighting back) that those offices are not all as damn important as so many of the office-holders think.
ReplyDelete"...those offices are not as damn important as so many of the office-holders think." Tom, to an extent, I believe that is true. But if the only thing preventing women from holding the offices is the fact of being women, then I can't deny that there are justice issues involved.
DeleteI agree with Francis that the problem of clericalism will not be solved by ordaining women or married men. Certainly Protestants and Orthodox are not free of clericalism.
ReplyDeleteThe last study came to a similar conclusion; the historic evidence does not decide the issue of ordination vs. commissioning. (Probably because they did not make that distinction). It was not until Vatican II that the church said for certain that episcopal consecration was a sacrament. Up until Vatican II the minor orders were treated as if they were apart of holy orders, i.e. lesser forms of the deaconate.
At the end of the last time around they wrote that the Pope would have to make a decision about women deacons. Francis is avoiding making that decision. He will also avoid making a decision about ordaining married men to the priesthood. Unless he can get a synod of bishops to back either decision. I am not sure he will. The bottom line is that we can only hope he will appoint enough cardinals and bishops that the next pope and some future synod of bishops will make those choices.
About ordaining married men to the priesthood, that already happened, and one doesn't have to go back to ancient history. There are former Anglican, and some Lutheran pastors, who have converted and entered the RC priesthood. Not to mention clergy in the Uniate Eastern rites.
DeleteJack, I think you are right about clericalism and ordination. I've seen similar things in Amish and Fundamentalist churches. Wherever there is a strict hierarchy, you get clericalism. And you attract people who prefer that type of leadership.
DeleteTo riff on Tom's distinction, framing ordination of women as a "justice" issue is essentially an attack on Holy Tradition.
ReplyDeleteI believe that, were the archives of the old dot.Commonweal resurrected, you would see arguments asking whether it was an "injustice" that men could not have babies. The Holy Tradition argument often boils down to complementarity: God ordained that men and women would have different "super powers."
This never made a huge amount of sense to me, because complementarity governs biological, not spiritual, functions.
Moreover, lay women can baptize and give extreme unction in certain emergencies. My Catholic girl friends were taught howhow. I played the hapless car accident victim they practiced on dozens of times.
So, why is the priest shortage not considered an emergency that would allow women to perform baptism and last rites? There are numerous hospitals, residential hospices, and nursing homes that priests and deacons cannot adequately serve.
"This never made a huge amount of sense to me, because complementarity governs biological, not spiritual, functions." Yeah, that's my thinking too.
ReplyDeleteThere are already both men and women EMHCs who take Communion to the homebound and care facilities. Some of the time it's probably Viaticum.
Sacramental Anointing of the Sick is another story, they don't let the deacons do that. Presumably because it includes confession and absolution if the person is conscious enough. If they aren't, they still get absolution.
In years past our parish has had a Mass periodically where anyone who feels they need it can come up for anointing. Our pastor now doesn't do that because it's supposed to be for actual serious stuff. But not every ill is physical, and it may be serious to the person experiencing it.
Katherine, I'll take your word for it on extreme unction, but I thought that a confession could be made without absolution, and the lay person could anoint.
DeleteA friend regularly took her schizophrenic son to a weeknight "healing Mass." It was a way for parishioners to support many families with chronically sick members. I thought it was very nice, but I know of no other parishes that do this.
The Church Ladies said you should only ask for anointing if you are dying, being put on hospice, getting chemo, or having an operation where the chances of dying are significant.
About the healing Masses, we have them around here, too. I understand them as being part of the charismatic movement. They do non-sacramental anointing, laying on of hands, and sometimes people get "slain in the Spirit". Yes it's a way people with chronic and other illness find support. The ones who aren't sick pray for the ones who are.
DeleteThere was recently a restriction placed on the non-sacramental anointing; I guess they were afraid people would be confused about what it really meant. But I think it still goes on, I don't see what harm there is in it as long as it isn't misrepresented.
There's a lot of variation of conditions for which people receive sacramental anointing. Some priests think like your church ladies, it's only for danger of death. Fortunately most of them interpret it more loosely. I have had sacramental anointing twice, neither time was I in extremis. One was before going in for a colonoscopy, the other was for surgery for revision of a fracture. I was scared both times, and it helped that.
The priest who anointed me asks the people who are sick or undergoing procedures to offer their sufferings for someone who needs to return to the practice of their faith. He said that within days of making that request there is usually an instance of someone being reconciled who has been away for a while.
It didn't seem charismatic to me. Nobody was talking in tongues or waving their hands around in the air. I have no idea what being "slain in the Spirit" means.
DeleteI don't know if there was anointing or just blessing. Whatever. I thought it was nice and it made my friend and her son feel supported.
We had a series of monthly healing Masses a few years ago. I don't think they were charismatic; in fact a social justice priest who isn't into getting slain in the spirit said most of them. They were organized by a Cancer Survivors Group, the president of which, now dead, had to call a recess every half hour or so and sneak out for a cigarette.
Delete"Slain in the spirit" is when the person suddenly passes out after being prayed over. Happened to my aunt. Afterwards, she said she was not afraid of death. Which didn't happen for her for another thirty years.
DeleteI'm sure healing Masses can be charismatic or not. I prefer not, but that's just me.
DeleteIt seems like the only Anglos I know who are involved in charismatic things are over 60. But younger Hispanics seem to like it.
I don't understand charismaticism, and Bill Mazzella persuaded me many years ago that I should not offer opinions about it.
DeleteThis mindset has become completely foreign to me. For better and worse, the human genders are more alike than different to start with. At a certain level of spirituality, don't gender differences lose relevancy? I am so tired of the Church dragging around this 50 ton barnacle.
ReplyDeleteWhaaa?? How are priests and deacons supposed to enjoy their cigars and highballs with a bunch of women talking about their "lady problems" andand strewing pink accent pillows around
DeleteYeah. I forgot about that.
DeleteYou want to know what is really boring, try getting stuck at a table with a bunch of clergy talking about canon law.
DeleteKatherine, you must have taken a side trip to Hell at some point.
DeleteIf the clergy walked away unharmed your reward will be great in heaven.
Delete