Why I Discarded My Ordination as a Woman in the Non-Denominational Church (Part 3) #Catholic

(Continued from Part 2 here.)

I spent over almost two years as a church secretary. I was nearing graduation from the ministry school and praying for future direction. One day, the vice president of the ministry asked to meet with me. He offered me a position to serve as a pastor within the school and a few opportunities to teach. I was elated. Finally, I felt as though God had answered the desire of my heart to serve Him full-time in the ministry. Ironically, I never thought of being a church secretary as being in "full-time ministry" or when I was working in a secular job, as a place to serve God. I still had narrow definitions when it came to what "serving God" meant and had unknowingly assigned a scale of importance to each area.

The offer of this new position quickly made its rounds within the church and ministry. Many congratulated me and quite a few women fluttered around me to declare that finally, women were being taken "seriously" as an equal partner in the ministry. I held all of these expectations carefully in my heart. On one hand, I had yearned for years for this very moment -- to have the opportunity to pastor. On the other hand, I did not want to give in to what was called "The Jezebel Spirit," which was to be controlling and manipulative. I knew I had to have God's guidance and stepped up my requests for His wisdom.

There was a man who previously held the position I was inheriting. In fact, I learned that he had been "let go" because he simply didn't fit in with the ministry culture. If you've ever worked in a corporate environment that made you feel uncomfortable, there is a good chance you were incompatible with that company. The same can be said of ministries. There are some who fit and others who don't. Many times there are personality conflicts and as much as we'd like to believe that everyone gets along within a ministry, nothing could be further from the truth. I witnessed staff members getting fired or harassed until they quit. One poor man was fired and the senior administration insisted on giving him a "going away" party. His wife fumed on the couch as we waited for the catered lunch. Such treatment was not uncommon.

Back to the man who held this position before me. He was on the Leadership Team. This team consisted of the senior pastor and several associate pastors. None of them were women. When I was hired to fill this position, I expected to be added to the team. However, this did not happen. It was another opportunity for the enemy to twist the knife of rejection in me, assuring me that I wasn't worthy for such a place of honor. I believed these lies only in the most secret place of my heart. Instead, I tried to focus on God's plan for my life and His perfect timing in all things. If I was meant to be on the Leadership Team, I would be. All I needed to do was be patient and wait on God. He had brought me this far, I thought. Why not to the Leadership Team, too?

After two years, I was formally ordained within the church. It was presented as nothing more than "acknowledging what God was already doing within my life," but the women in the church and the women students of the school looked at it as a breakthrough for women. Afterward, I had an increase of women students who formed a consistent line to my office, seeking their day in "spiritual court."

One woman said with exasperation, "When is it going to be my turn? When am I going to be invited to speak at churches, conferences and retreats? I'm so tired of waiting!" I remember encouraging her to wait until God opened doors for her. If she became impatient and tried to force open the doors, then she'd never realize if it was God doing it or her own stubborn ways. She walked away still feeling frustrated.

Some of the woman wanted me to be their mouthpiece, appealing to the senior pastor and associates that for all their talk about recognizing women in the ministry, there was little evidence of it. I was placed in the delicate position of upholding my loyalty and trust in the ministry's leadership while diffusing the unrest of those who were unhappy. It didn't help when a trusted advisor whispered to me at one of the church services that she had watched me walk up the aisle and noticed some people's faces as they looked at me.

"You know what I saw? Jealousy and envy. Pray for protection. I'm already praying this for you." After she walked away, I couldn't help but think -- Jealous? If they only knew.

Within a few years, I started to feel like a young girl who had outgrown a party dress. The things I had thought were so important started to fade away. The more I saw of the ministry, the less I was convinced I was to be a part of it, at least within that particular ministry. Fr. Corapi once said that never had he encountered in the world the level of hatred he received within the Church. I have thought for quite awhile that the admonitions and exhortations in the Bible to love our enemies is not for loving those who are in the world, but for loving our enemies in the church.

I had plenty of opportunity to love and forgive during those years. Sometimes I was victorious with the grace of God. Other times I failed. But through it all, I learned some very important lessons. The most important one, was dying to self.

In 2000, I was starting to experience the early stages of burn-out. I wasn't sure what was next for me, but I suspected my time at the ministry school was coming to a close. It climaxed with a heartless experience with an associate pastor, who coldly told me that my recommendation for a book resource for the upcoming new class of students was not only unacceptable, but just wrong. I suppose it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. That was the moment I decided it was time to leave.

That experience was followed up by another associate pastor visiting me in my office, "warning" me that I didn't want to get on the "bad side" of the other pastor. I assured him I wanted nothing of the sort to happen and that I genuinely thought the book would be of great benefit to the students. He nodded and smiled. And then, as though offering a bribe of candy to a scolded child, said, "You know, there are plans being made to ask you to be a part of the Leadership Team."

And there it was. The one thing I had yearned for since I had first joined the school was being dangled in front of me like a big, juicy carrot. I would be the first woman formally accepted as part of the team. How amazing. The women would finally see that they were really being taken seriously. And... how suddenly irrelevant it all was. The fact of the matter was, I no longer cared about it, nor wanted it. I smiled at him and said something trivial. He ended his visit and I sat there, pondering the journey I had taken and how it led me to a very surprising conclusion.

Somehow, I knew that if I had become part of the Leadership Team, it wouldn't stop there. My desire would be for greater and greater platforms of recognition. I would seek to become a spiritual teacher to hundreds, then thousands, then perhaps tens of thousands. I could see myself saying that I wanted to make a difference, but such a desire is a two-edged sword. I remembered reading the biographies of famous men and women evangelists who traveled non-stop throughout the world, preaching the Gospel and healing the sick. Most of them died at an early age from sheer exhaustion.

Those who are called to ministry are called to a life of sacrifice. I never saw it more clearly than when I was involved in the school of ministry. Just before I reached the decision of leaving, I was starting to experience a little of that "rock star" phenomenon where people would seek me for prayer and words of encouragement. It can be very draining. It also can lead one to assume that people are coming to them for their own spiritual gifts and not give glory to God. Truly, we are channels of His grace. If there is any good that comes from us, it is only by His hand that it is given.

I left the school and moved back home at the end of 2000. I met my husband in 2001 and married him months later. I had no desire to return to ministry. In fact, I think it's safe to say I was burned-out so thoroughly that church attendance, which before had been vital to my life, was avoided. From 2001 - mid-2007, I stayed at home on most Sundays. I tried to visit several churches, but felt restless in each one. I tried visiting the non-denominational churches but had no interest in getting on that hectic roller-coaster ministry ride again.

After my mother passed away in 2007 -- astonishingly, I discovered I was able to sit through Mass and feel peace and restoration, not anxiety. It was a surprise that still fills me with joy even to this day. I know I've been abundantly blessed and God has extended an enormous amount of grace to me. Words will never be able to describe my gratitude.

To end this little story, I would like to return to the priesthood, and how some women feel as though they've been left out of such an influential position. I think many of us know that if women became priests, many would not be satisfied. Next would be the pursuit of becoming a bishop, then an archbishop, and then, a cardinal. Finally, we would witness the demand and pressure that the College of Cardinals would elect a woman as Pope. I pray we never see such a thing.

If women could take a peek within the life of a priest (or a bishop, archbishop, or cardinal), they would quickly see that it is not a life of glory. It is a life of long hours, constant demands, emotionally needy people grasping for you, angry people upset with you, worries and concerns that you may not be meeting the needs of your flock, hidden guilt that you're not doing enough, nights spent in prayer asking God for the grace to love the unlovable and forgive the cruel, carefully dancing in the political arena as some plot your downfall and others appear to be trusted friends while stabbing you in the back.

And the loneliness... Serving daily while not having a spouse at home who can encourage you or fix you a nice, hot meal. These are the number of sacrifices a priest makes and there are many more. But most priests will say they can't imagine it being any different. They couldn't imagine trying to be a spouse or being happy in a secular job. Praise be to God for calling these men into His service! There is sacrifice, yes, but there is also unspeakable joy in doing the will of our heavenly Father. This is the place we all must find, that place where we seek God's will in our lives. When we find it, we find peace.

So when I look at the women clamoring to be ordained as priests, I do not see women who are filled with peace. I see women who are caught up in what used to bind me -- the desire for recognition and validation. But even if they ever receive a "badge," it will never be enough. As long as we seek power and the admiration of man, we will always be unsatisfied. Only by giving up everything, including our own dreams, will we find His peace.

And sometimes, when you do get the dream, you just might find it isn't all that you'd thought it would be.

Why I Discarded My Ordination as a Woman in the Non-Denominational Church (Part 2) #Catholic

(Continued from Part 1 here.)

As one of the female students in my ministry class, I sought opportunities to minister to others and serve in the church. Our class also had the privilege of receiving ministry from well-known spiritual teachers and pastors. I would secretly be filled with happiness when one of them would give me a "word of knowledge" about my future ministry or tell me that I had strong spiritual gifts. Each time I would think that "someday," others would see this, too. Spiritual pride can creep upon us without a whisper. Oftentimes we believe we are seeking God's will. Instead, what we're often seeking is our own sense of importance. This was true for me.

I mentioned that these traveling teachers and pastors were seen as "spiritual rock stars." I wish I was kidding. Some would insist on being housed in a fine hotel. Others would treat our ministry staff as personal servants. I was starting to see the ugly side of ministry and was both shocked and disillusioned. Was this what I desired?

I will never forget a married couple who made their mark upon me with their considerate and kind ways. The ministry hosted several large conferences throughout the year. Those who were employed by the ministry basically worked their tails off to pull off a spectacular event. Much of this work included the "hospitality room" for the special speakers.

This area was usually a well-guarded room within a hotel where the speakers could rest and pray before speaking before the crowds. At one conference, it was an actual stand-alone cottage. My boss, the administrative pastor of the church, asked if I would volunteer to work within the cozy retreat to help prepare food and drink. But only on one condition.

"Mary Rose, you need to abide by this one rule. Do not talk to the speakers. If they ask you something, of course answer and make sure they have plenty of food and beverage. But you are not to ask them for anything, or talk to them, or ask for prayer." He solemnly stared at me to drive home the point.

My eyes grew large. "Of course! I'll do whatever is needed," I said as I smiled.

But inside I felt another sense of disappointment and confusion. Was this what Jesus had meant when He told His apostles to go and teach all nations to observe all He had taught them? Where was the love? The humility? Or was I being naive?

It was at the cottage when I came across the married couple; whose easy-going personalities were like a draught of clear, cool water on a hot summer's day. Not only did they talk to me, they asked me questions and treated me with kindness and respect. I quickly considered them friends, but still realized that I was "just a staff person" and certainly didn't equate myself with these globe-trotting ministers. But what astounded me was they never gave me the impression that this was how they viewed themselves. We did become friends and I stayed with them on several occasions while I was involved with the ministry. They were and still are an amazing, God-loving and God-serving couple.

It took some time, but I was finally witnessing the veneer coming off the "spiritual rock star" world. Yes, many of them were good teachers. But most of them knew how to work the emotions of a crowd. Some indeed had prophetic spiritual gifting, boldly telling a stranger in front of conference attendees the desires of their heart. But behind closed doors, most were worn out and wary of anyone approaching them. Many who attended these conferences had emotional needs that could not be met by one session of teaching. But they pursued these teachers, believing that somehow, any notice from them would give them the seal of approval they desperately wanted.

There are many reasons why people crave approval. Within a ministry, it is unavoidable that such people will seek out anyone they think has a "silver bullet" for whatever ails them. Some of these people I considered "black holes." No matter how much attention and encouragement was given to them, they needed more, and more, and more. This was why many of those "spiritual rock stars" were so wary and often distanced themselves from others. It was a question of spiritual survival. Without retreating, as Jesus often did to be with His Father, a minister could quickly become burned-out.

I watched and observed these leaders, and wondered if the same was in store for me? Was this what I really wanted? More importantly, was it what God wanted for me? All I knew was that from those experiences, I was driven to a deeper prayer life as I asked God these questions and more.

To be continued...

Why I Discarded My Ordination as a Woman in the Non-Denominational Church #Catholic

In light of the wonderful news from Saturday, where three Anglican bishops were ordained as Roman Catholic priests, there was the backdrop of two unhappy women staging a "protest" and demanding women to be ordained as priests. From the blog Mulier Fortis, she shares a collection of other articles and posts that reflected upon the event, and then added a photo from Facebook that showed two women holding up a banner that demands women to be ordained as priests.

A U.K. writer, Peter Stanford, shared his observations in his piece History Overturned as Anglican Bishops Are Ordained as Catholic Priests. There are a few points I disagree with, namely the old canard that the Catholic Church is somehow "anti-woman" and that this momentous occasion of Anglicans leaving for the Catholic Church is a negative thing.

From Stanford's article:

Instead, it was hard to avoid concluding that what this ceremony really signalled was an end to the search for the compromises that would reunite two distinctive churches, and its replacement by Rome's scheme to gather up so many Anglican converts that the Church of England simply withers on the vine. A takeover, not a merger.

When the Church of England decided to allow women and homosexuals to become priests, they were the one who ended any compromise that would reunite two distinctive churches. The Catholic Church has explained many times why it is impossible for women to be ordained as priests. But the Church of England didn't pay attention. So now they've reached a point of no return and some want to blame the Catholic Church over it? All these Anglicans who converted did was emphasize orthodox Christianity, not bending to the world's standards but upholding God's. As a famous person quipped, "If there is distance between you and God, guess who moved?"

Stanford also touches upon the debate about women being ordained:

It is the Vatican's negative attitude to women's ministry that formed the backdrop to the whole affair. The three recruits oppose the Church of England's plans to appoint female bishops and regard the Catholic priesthood as a safe, female-free haven.

I wrote a comment on Fr. Z's blog:

I'm coming with a different perspective regarding the ordination of women (And may just write my own post about it.). The ordination of women has become politicized as the feminist movement systematically infiltrated Protestant and non-denominational churches over the past 40 years. Since my return to the Catholic Church in 2008, I have continued to hear the same complaint: The Roman Catholic Church treats women as "second-class citizens." What amazing ignorance such accusations expose!

For one, we have our Blessed Mother, Mary -- Mother of God; who I may add, has been elevated and reverenced in the Church in a multitude of ways. If I could have a word with those women who are so unhappy with the Church, I'd ask them to please consider Our Lady, and dare them to follow her ways. She led her life in complete obedience to God and had humility, love, and compassion -- not to mention a boatload of wisdom. She has influenced everyone from popes and kings to small children. If what these women are seeking is recognition and influence, I can think of no better woman as a role model than the BVM.

And secondly, we have in the Church three women Doctors of the Faith (out of 33). And those women lived centuries before feminism reared its self-centered big head! St. Catherine of Sienna (1347-80), St. Teresa of Avila (1515-82), and St. Theresa of Lisieux (1873-97). Those saints are my role models, not Gloria Steinem.

I was ordained within my non-denominational church but over the years, I believe the Lord has shown me some (ugly) truths about the pursuit of power; and I realize we all know that this is what it's about. Power. However, what priest do you know who has that as his motivation to serve? None I can think of. To answer the call to the priesthood is to surrender to a life of sacrifice. It is a life of serving. Try explaining that to these thick-headed women. I suspect all one would receive is a blank stare.

When I think of my Catholic schooling, I think of the nuns. Granted, at the time they were being over-run by feminist ideology, but still, they were there. Some had surrendered themselves to the political tumult of the day but a few had not. Those women influenced me. I did not look upon them at the time as either "having power" or not. They were in my life and that was powerful enough. Too many women underestimate the influence they wield in the lives of others and those who continue to bang the drum for women's ordination are unfortunately blind to that fact.

They mistakenly believe that the only way a woman can make a difference is if she has a badge on her chest so everyone will notice. How wrong they are. Women make a difference every day within their parish by showing concern for someone in need, praying for them, making a meal. As Christians, we are all called to give to others, to show love and compassion, to pray, to speak kindly to one another, to love our neighbors as ourselves - all without looking for recognition. This is what exasperates me when I see women clamoring for ordination. Seeking praise from men and women will not satisfy. And whatever is achieved will never be enough because the pursuit of power is never-ending.

I'm going to use my own experiences as an example.

In 1995, I left my hometown of Cincinnati to attend a small ministry school in another state. I was part of the very first class of a brand new school, and we were all very excited. We had come to the school from all over the country and some, from other parts of the world. It was a small class, around twenty students who ranged in age from 21-55. We were drawn to the idea of pioneering a school for prophetic ministry and believed we'd make a difference someday as we ministered wherever God led.

As I entered the second year of the program, I was hired as the church secretary. I'll be honest. I wanted to do more than make copies of a newsletter and answer the phone. But I had been encouraged by many people to "trust in the Lord and wait upon Him." If He had other plans for me, He would allow them to bloom in His timing. It was during this time that I started to read about famous women evangelists and prophetesses, desiring to preach to large crowds. I admired women who had broken through "the stained glass ceiling" to finally be respected by the men for their leadership qualities and spiritual authority. I reasoned at the time that many women had traveled to distant parts of the world to plant churches because men weren't available, so why not me? Already there were seeds of discontent sown but I was oblivious. God, obviously, had His work cut out for Him.

At our church, we'd have famous prophets and prophetesses visit. They often gave "words of knowledge" to those at the service. I always hungered for these words, viewing it as confirmation that I was spiritually unique and that God had a special plan for me. Looking back now, I can see that I was yearning for the recognition of the world. I thought that if others saw me as having a certain sense of spiritual authority, I would finally be seen as someone worthy. I might even get to hang out with the "spiritual rock stars" in the prophetic world.

Was I in for a rude awakening.

To be continued...

Reader Janny Comments on Women Wanting to be Ordained as Priests #Catholic

This is one of the best comments I've had on this topic. Janny, I couldn't agree with you more. You absolutely nailed some of the most popular reasons a woman wants to be ordained as a priest. Thank you for highlighting the true calling of a priest. Excellent words!

I'd like to add this: We, the Church, are called the Body of Christ, and also the Bride of Christ. As Christ laid down His life for the Church, so His priests lay down their lives for her also. Without that intent, serving can shift into just another job or a huge ego boost. Within intimacy, the man is the initiator and the woman, receives him. This is echoed in the relationship God has with the world. He initiated contact. He initiated salvation. He initiated a relationship by first giving us His Holy Spirit. We, in turn, receive in joyful gladness.

This may be another reason why I don't agree with women as senior pastors of a church. They were not given the role of initiator, but as one who receives. The Blessed Mother Mary did not approach God, asking for Him to choose her. God approached her and initiated the divine conception.

Janny's comment:

Years ago, I wrote a letter to the editor of my diocesan paper addressing something that no doubt had appeared in its pages at the time (I don't remember now!)...but its crux was about women and the priesthood. In the letter, I simply mentioned that out of all the women I'd ever heard talk about ordination, all the women who chafed at being "only" women within the Church, not ONE of them ever said, "I want to be a priest because I feel called to lay down my life in sacrificial service, just as Christ did." They said, "I want to be a priest because it's only right and fair that the power of the Church be shared among men and women equally."

So this was their noble "calling": not one of sacrifice but one in which they could grab a share of power, authority, and visibility. It was about "privilege" (as in, you have privileges I want and I'M ENTITLED TO THEM!). Sometimes, it was about anger ("I'm sick and tired of stupid, patriarchal priests lording it over us women when we do all the work.")

But it was never, EVER about sacrifice. It was never, EVER about giving. It was about taking, and seizing power, and Changing the Church to Recognize Reality.

To this day, even among women I know who honestly (if misguidedly) feel "called" to the priesthood and are heartbroken because that big nasty male-dominated Roman teaching authority Just Doesn't Understand Their Gift...at the end of the day, it's STILL not about sacrifice. It's about what "I" feel called to do, what "I" want, what role "I" desperately want to fulfill in the Church, and the role GOD IS CALLING ME TO DO--it MUST be, because I want it so badly!

Whereas with all the holy, truly good male priests I talk to, and hear from...you can't go a sentence into a conversation with most of them before you hear the "S" word. They refer to their calling as a gift, not as their due, not as something they've earned, and not as something they're somehow "owed" by God. And they don't say the word "sacrifice" as if it's something I'M supposed to do, and they're NOT. They say the word as if it's something we're ALL called to do, together...and something that, by its nature, is difficult at times. If it weren't, it wouldn't be a sacrifice in the first place. :-)

But then again, if salvation were easy...God's Son wouldn't have had to die a criminal's death to procure it for us, either. Of course, maybe God should have sent a daughter to die instead--and then the whole equation would make more sense to these people? One can only wonder.

Obedience is much simpler. Easy? Maybe not always. But simpler? And more blessed? Yes, and yes.

Iowa Bishop Warns Against 'Womanpriest' Ordination #Catholic

Another hen trying to be a rooster...

Bishop Martin John Amos (who is a Buckeye, by the way!), has warned that anyone attempting to ordain a woman as a Roman Catholic priest, bishop, or deacon; and the woman who is attempting ordination, will be ex-communicated from the Roman Catholic Church.

An Iowa bishop has reminded Catholics in his diocese that “those who attempt to confer Holy Orders on women are excommunicated, as are the women who attempt to receive Holy Orders. This includes the attempted ‘ordination’ for a deacon, priest or bishop.’” Bishop Martin Amos of Davenport issued his statement because Mary Kay Kusner-- whom the Iowa City Press-Citizen describes as a “devout Catholic”-- is scheduled to “to become the first female Catholic Womanpriest in Iowa” on June 13. (Source)

To give you some background: Mary Kay Kusner is heading to the First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Coralville, Iowa, to complete this grand illusion. And an illusion it is. Because the Roman Catholic Church Does. Not. Ordain. Women. As. Priests. So any woman who says she's going to be ordained as a priest has quickly entered the "No Reality Zone."

I also want to know how exactly a Protestant church got involved in this. The church's pastor, John McKinstry, says he has known Kusner for 15 years. And he "thinks that regardless of the laws of the Catholic Church, she is fit for priesthood." Oh, really? Well, I think I'm fit to be the Queen of England but that doesn't mean it will happen. Besides, how much does this pastor know about Catholic doctrine? Or Catholic history? Or even Catholic identity? I say the obvious answer is...zilch.

It's a sad, divisive situation. Kusner is one of eight children, brought up in Lancaster, Ohio. Only one brother will be attending her fake ordination. The rest of the family has refused to participate. Growing up, her family sounded like a devout, traditional Catholic family. They even had their own chapel, complete with a stained glass window. From the article in Press-Citizen, "Kusner still pursuing dreams despite barriers -- UIHC chaplain working to become state's first Catholic Womanpriest" (emphasis and comments mine):

But Kusner said it was her Catholic background that gave her the desire to serve others. (Beautiful. You can serve in so many other ways. Just not as a priest.) After graduating from John Carroll University in Cleveland and marrying Dave, her husband of 26 years, Kusner went on to pursue a master's in pastoral ministry from Boston College. It was then that Kusner felt she could best use her gifts serving as a chaplain in pediatric oncology. (A very difficult area. Again, it is an awesome place to use one's spiritual gifts of encouragement and compassion.)

During her 20 years as a chaplain, Kusner gave birth to four children -- three healthy sons and a daughter, Anna, who was born with a chromosomal disorder. Kusner chronicled her journey with Anna in her book, titled "Upside-Down and Backwards," published in fall 2009.

It was Anna, she said, who helped Kusner decide to pursue priesthood.

"(Anna) plays a huge part in that she taught me on a personal level the significance of inclusion," Kusner said. "(She is) one of the main reasons I'm doing this." (Ahh. So your daughter's medical disorder became the political for you? News flash, sister: you were always "included" in God's Kingdom. You were included when Jesus Christ died for your sins. You are included in the great love God has for all His children. You are included in receiving spiritual gifts that all His children have been given. How is it you feel not included? Do you not feel included because you can't be the quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers?)

Kusner said it's been difficult to pursue priesthood in light of what it has cost her. (No doubt.) Though Kusner was automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church upon her ordination as a deacon in August 2009, she still practices Catholicism in her own faith community, Full Circle, which she currently leads in people's homes. (And this is the crux of it for me. I don't know what she's practicing but to me, it isn't Catholicism. Practicing our faith means attending Mass and receiving the Sacraments [wait for it...] from a priest. She is not doing that because she can't until she is reconciled with the Church. The fact that she has rejected Catholic doctrine tells me she is rebellious enough to operate solely by her emotion, which is not a good thing for the stressful life of ministry. Plus, rebellion is no small thing, either.)

But what is perhaps most painful for her is the disapproval from her parents and siblings. Though one of Kusner's brothers will be attending her ordination, her sisters and parents will not. (No surprise if she came from a traditional Catholic family.)

"They ask, 'Why don't you stay a chaplain?'" Kusner said. "They've lived by the letter of the law, staying within the box." (It's called obedience. I know. It is difficult. But the rewards of our trust and obedience far outweigh any fleshly desires we may have.)

Another look at Disciples of Christ: The denomination has a woman president, Rev. Dr. Sharon Watkins. They are also part of the World Council of Churches, which advocates leftist ideology such as economic and social justice, climate change, and "poverty, wealth, and ecology." So it's no surprise a fake ordination would be encouraged from this type of institution.

I'm not sure how these women would explain St. Paul's letter to Timothy. You know, that niggling little verse:

I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men, she is to keep silent. (1 Tim. 2:12, RSV)

The Greek word for "authority" is authenteō. It means to govern, exercise dominion over one. And I know many ladies get their backs up over the command to "keep silent." But that word, hēsychia, means a description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others. Somehow I suspect St. Paul was referring to that type of quietness. This is one of the marks of a godly woman - someone who serves with joy, keeps her responsibilities, and doesn't seek constant affirmation and recognition from others.

I know of this well because I used to be Kusner. At one point in my life, I wanted to see more women "released" into ministry, including serving as a pastor. However, over time I began to see God's wisdom on the topic. I always felt uneasy whenever I saw a woman as the senior pastor of a congregation, but wasn't sure why. I'm still not sure I can articulate clearly why it's not a good thing, but here are a few thoughts:

Women rarely can handle the stress of leading a congregation. I know, I know. Some women will point out that Margaret Thatcher led pretty well and then there was Deborah the Judge from the Old Testament. I'm not saying a woman cannot hold a position of leadership in the world (although I still think it's tougher on women), but within the spiritual world, it's a different story. God created Adam first. Eve was created for Adam. This tells me that God had some priorities when He created mankind. In the Old Testament, never was a woman consecrated as a Levitical priest. Never.

Jesus Christ said that He did not come to destroy the Law of the Old Testament, but to fulfill it. I would think that if there was something as major as allowing women to become priests -- He would have mentioned it at that point. He didn't. He chose twelve men to be His disciples. He traveled with them, ministered with them, and sent them out as His ambassadors, giving them divine power to accomplish His commands. Again, if women were to be given the authority to do these things, I would think Jesus would have made it clear at that point. He wasn't afraid to break cultural taboos such as speaking to a Samaritan woman at a well. He certainly wasn't shy about letting people know where He stood in relation to His Father's kingdom, such as driving out the moneychangers from the temple. So this leads me to one conclusion. Women were not meant to hold the position of pastor, elder, bishop, archbishop, or cardinal.

Am I saying that women are sub-standard or too stupid for those positions? Absolutely not. In fact, I believe God has given women many gifts and talents -- and one of them is wisdom. Women can still have an amazing influence upon her circle of family and friends, her city, state, and the world. Some are called to positions of authority within political spheres and in the business world. (I still retain the opinion that for a woman to walk in those positions of authority - her strongest gift should be wisdom.)

But in the Church, there is a hierarchy, a specific church government that has been instituted by Jesus Christ. Women are usually much more open to spiritual matters than men. It's natural for a woman to flow from prayer to meditation to serving. Most men are fine with doing something but if a woman is already doing it, do you think they'll attempt to interfere? Not usually. I've been in many churches that have opened the door to women being pastors and all of them lost the men when they did it. In other words, the majority of the work of the church was done by women and the men did little or nothing.

Now some women may say, "And that's a problem?" Well, yes it most certainly is. And the reason it's a problem is because men are robbed the opportunity to explore and grow in their own gifts. When women are doing all the work (because "it won't get done if we wait for the men...") men will rarely balk. Many of them would rather just sit back and let someone else fulfill their roles. As I've mentioned before, in the last non-denominational church I was a part of, about 80% of the church roles were filled by women. The only reason the men weren't totally dominated by the women was because the senior pastor and his leadership team were predominately men.

Something just seems upside-down when women are in church leadership positions. If we're going to talk about feelings, I'll say it: it doesn't feel right. Women have been given some amazing opportunities to be used by God but so often they're looking in the wrong direction. When Jesus Christ walked this earth, a group of women followed and ministered to His needs. What does Jesus Christ need today? How can we as women minister to Him and what does that look like? Ministering to Jesus Christ is an awesome and humbling calling upon women's lives.

This is always a difficult topic for me to address because I do have a teaching gift. It has been a challenge over the years to find ways to exercise that gift without usurping the authority of men. I have found fulfillment by teaching women and occasionally, children. But whenever I see an incident of a woman trying to be a priest, I feel a strong pull to speak out. If one is a part of a church structure that does not allow for this, why continue to push it? What is one's motivation at that point? To prove that they're worthy of service? Or to be publicly affirmed as being "just as important" as a man -- whatever that means? Only honest examination and prayer will reveal the truth.

National #Catholic Reporter's Series on Women Religious - Who Doesn't "Get It?"

I was unaware of this series until today. Sr. Sandra Schneiders from the Immaculate Heart of Mary, reflects on the meaning of religious life today. Schneiders, professor of New Testament Studies and Christian Spirituality at the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, sets the context for “Religious Life as Prophetic Life Form.” The installments run from Jan. 4 through Jan. 8.

I read the first installment and was completely flummoxed. Just astonished. Below is an excerpt and my comments are in red, emphasis mine.

Little by little pressure from a variety of sources seems to have uncovered the answers to those two questions. The “charges” are that LCWR (Leadership Conference of Women Religious)-type Congregations (the vast majority of Religious in the country) have implemented in their lives and in their ministries changes called for by Vatican II to the detriment (manifested in the decline in numbers of vocations) of religious life itself. (First, I don't agree with the approach Sr. Schneiders is taking. To frame this investigation as "criminal" misses the point. The Vatican is concerned about declining numbers of women religious. They want to evaluate the situation. How anyone can deny the fact that these communities are not receiving new vocations as a valid concern, is beyond me. It seems as though some women religious are looking at the issue from only one perspective. Is it because the Vatican is backward or hasn't allowed women to be priests? But if that is the case, how is it that the more traditional communities are increasing?) Cardinal Rodé (the highest officer in Rome on religious life) believes, in his own words, that the council precipitated the first “world-wide crisis” in the history of the church and women religious, in his view, are primary promoters of that crisis in the United States.

The “accusers” are a small group of extremely conservative women religious who, in September 2008, held a conference at Stonehill College in Massachusetts on consecrated life as they understand it, to which they invited Cardinal Rodé. (From everything I've read, this does not seem to be true. There are many Catholics who have been concerned.) At this conference, which included no presentation of positions at variance with their own, they put contemporary ministerial religious Life on trial in absentia, found it seriously wanting, and raised the cry, “Investigate them!”

Cardinal Rodé, having heard what he apparently thought was a widely held consensus that U.S. women’s apostolic religious life was in serious decline concluded, (Again, numbers do not lie. Losing 49% of women religious within 30 years obviously is going to send up a red flag.) “We have no further need of witnesses.” (Does anyone read statistics?) Unfortunately, he failed to consult the many thousands of Catholic laity who have received from women religious their formation in the faith, ongoing spiritual support, pastoral care in times of need, and colleagueship in ministry and who are now expressing their solidarity with the sisters by petitions and personal letters of protest to the Cardinal, the Visitator, the Apostolic Delegate, and local ordinaries as well as by individual and collective testimonies to and about the sisters (see, e.g., U.S. Catholic, “Entered into Evidence [75:1, Jan. 2010]).

He failed to consult moderate bishops, like those in California, who have publicly testified that without women religious their dioceses would not have become what they are and would not be functioning as well as they are today. (I could be really snarky here, but I'll refrain. Proof is in the pudding.) He failed to consult significant groups of religious outside the United States, such as AMOR (conference of women Religious in Asia and Oceania) and UISG (International Union of Superiors General in Rome), which have expressed in public statements their appreciation of, support for, and solidarity with U.S. religious. (Wasn't this investigation about the communities within the U.S.? If so, how would it make any difference to consult with those overseas? Makes no sense unless she's angling for a defense team, which she is.) He failed to consult the sisters themselves who could have enlightened him on the size and ideological commitments of the one small group of religious he did consult and the few rightist bishops, in this country and in Rome, to whom he listened.

Many people, including many religious, think this investigation is an unprecedented assault on religious. ("Assault" - Here we go again with the criminal language. This is a sly tactic of the left. Frame an argument by using certain language and you can change someone's perspective in time. Her choice of comparative language only gets better, as you'll soon see.) Its scope may be unprecedented but its content certainly is not. Many, perhaps most, religious congregations in this country have in their archives documents and correspondence chronicling equally or even more serious confrontations between their order and the local ecclesiastical authorities. (Confrontation seems to be common with them. Is this the role of women religious?)

These records, going back decades or even centuries, tell of threats and intimidation to enforce conscience-violating policies or practices (such as racial discrimination) instigated by members of the hierarchy, drastic sanctions for non-subordination to clergy in matters over which the clerics had no jurisdiction, demotion and even permanent exile without due process of lawfully elected and even revered superiors (including founders), appointment without election of compliant puppet governments, interference in appointments of sisters, unilateral closing of institutions, forced acceptance of apostolates not appropriate to the congregation, and even outright theft of financial assets, to name only the most egregious examples. (I am not saying that the Catholic hierarchy has been 100% fair or perfect. I don't have all the facts. But Sr. Schneiders is trotting all this out as though not one circumstance of an investigation was warranted. So the hierarchy is painted as "The Big Bad Wolf" and the women religious were nothing more than Little Red Riding Hood on her way to her grandmother's house. Nice victimization zing. By the way, Sister - I don't know if you really want to go down the road of "outright theft of financial assets" when a small group of women religious effectively left the Catholic Church but managed to steal the property.)

Many sisters, until very recently, did not know this part of their congregational histories. These often protracted and traumatic struggles were dark pages that, like many abuse victims, (See how sly she was with this? Now the women religious are "abuse victims" because they were confronted. How is asking questions or calling someone into accountability, "abuse?" Note: feminists cannot have it both ways. If you want to say you're strong, fine. But you can't be "strong" and then claim that you're an "abuse victim.") the corporate victims (the congregations) tried to bury or forget. (Forget? Are you kidding me? Even as someone who has just returned to the Church has noticed a consistent call for justice regarding the sexual abuse cases. And I think that the National Catholic Reporter did its share of exposing this evil, which was right.) Even when the abused know rationally that they are not to blame for what happened to them there is often a sense of deep shame, of being somehow responsible for inciting the abuse, of being “damaged goods” because of what one has undergone (especially if there is wide disparity of power and/or status between abuser and abused), of just wanting it to go away in hopes it will never happen again. (Who is the abused? According to Sister, the women religious. How can there be a "sense of deep shame" when many of these women, according to Sister, were unaware of their past, full of what she claims were "traumatic struggles?")

Of course, it is still happening. The forced dispensation from vows of most of the members of the Los Angeles IHMs in the late 1960’s by a furious Cardinal James F. McIntyre, who could not force these women to submit to his will; (Big Bad Wolf, again. Although I am loathe to reference Wikipedia, in this case, it was the quickest sketch I could find of his Eminence. It was no surprise to find Cardinal McIntyre was a staunch conservative, a promoter of Pope Paul VI's re-emphasization of the Church's stance on contraception [Humanae Vitae], and warned about the ramifications of a liturgical free-for-all from Vatican II. I'm sure the liberal women religious couldn't stand this man.) the years of struggle by superiors who refused to violate the consciences of the twenty-four women Religious who, in 1984, signed a New York Times statement asking for honest discussion (not a change of doctrine or even practice) of the issue of abortion that was seriously dividing the country and the church; (Then why discuss it? The Catholic Church abhors abortion and rightly names it as evil. What's to discuss?) attempts, some successful and some not, to force the dismissal of Sisters legitimately appointed by their superiors to certain ministries, and so on, are within the memory of most religious alive today. In other words, there is nothing new (except perhaps the comprehensive scope of the present investigation) in the struggle between some elements of the hierarchy and women Religious. (Nothing new? So Rome shouldn't be concerned about a bunch of women religious who want "to discuss" abortion? Really?)

One of the most pernicious and characteristic aspects of these episodes is the pervasive appeal to a supposed obligation to “blind obedience to hierarchical authority” as the legitimation for clerical control, and even abuse, of women Religious. (Ah, geez. The "abuse" word, again. I'd also like to point out something. I have not capitalized "religious" as in "women religious" because I'm not sure this is proper. But I find it interesting that Sr. Schneiders capitalizes this word but yet cannot bring herself to capitalize the pronoun "he" for Jesus Christ.) This neuralgic (??) issue of the meaning of obedience is central to the current investigation and it is important to realize that it is not new, not precipitated by late 20th century developments in American society or the post-conciliar church, and not likely to be settled by heavy-handed exercises of coercive power. (The issue of obedience is now compared to Master/Slave. If I'm not mistaken, no women religious was kept in the dark about which Church had authority. It's not like someone put a blindfold on them and told them they were joining the Ladies Garden Club.) The issue goes back to the Gospel and the life of Jesus in his religious and social setting and it will only be clarified by faithful meditation on the Scriptures, prayer, and courageous action.

There is an instructive parallel between the questions religious are asking about the Vatican investigation (and which they have asked before, many times, in similar situations) and the questions scholars (and many ordinary believers) ask about the trial and execution of Jesus. There is a tendency to ask and to stop with, the questions “Who is responsible for the death of Jesus?” and “Why was Jesus executed?” (Like who is responsible for this investigation and what are the charges?)

(This next section is simply breathtaking.)

At one level the answers are fairly easily available to a careful study of the Gospel texts. Jesus was executed by the collusion of the political (Roman Empire) and religious (Jerusalem hierarchy) power elites in first century Palestine. He was executed because his ministry threatened to cause an uprising of the Palestinian peasantry. This would have been fatal to the career of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor whose job was to keep the Jewish province under control. It would have been even more disastrous for the Jewish leadership who retained what little authority they had over their own religious affairs and population only as long as the Jewish populace did not become problematic for the Empire.

But this basically political-religious motivation is only a first level answer to the questions of “who” and “why”. It does not get at what we really need to know about Jesus and his mission if we want to understand the human predicament from which he came to save us and the radicality of the solution to that predicament that God offered us in Jesus. Until we realize that it is really the human race, including me/us, rather than a few historical figures in first century Palestine, who crucified Jesus we do not yet “get it.” Until we realize that the reason for his execution is anthropological, theological, soteriological, rather than merely regionally political or religious, and that those factors permeate the experience of the whole human race, we have not begun to plumb the real meaning of the paschal mystery or our own implication in it.

Jesus’ prophetic ministry of word and work was not merely a threat to the particular domination systems of Rome and Jerusalem. It was a fundamental subversion of domination itself as the demonic structure operative in human history. (Wow. I am almost speechless. Where is sin mentioned here? If any "demonic structure" exists, it is the one that holds mankind in the bondage of sin. If there is any domination, it is the Original Sin born in the Garden of Eden when the devil convinced Eve that she didn't need God and could figure out life without Him. The domination of the flesh is the most cunning type of domination and the devil excels at encouraging it.) The incarnation was God’s revelation in Jesus that God is not a supreme power controlling humanity through fear of damnation or extinction, (Does not the justice of God have a place within our faith?) nor the legitimator of human domination systems, (What exactly is she talking about? What is a "human domination system?" Political ideology? Or the Catholic Church?) but One who has chosen loving solidarity unto death with us to free us from all fear and bring us into the “liberty of the children of God.”

In this new creation those who held power, Rome and Jerusalem, males and masters, strong and rich, were finished. (If that's not a clear indictment of the Vatican, I don't know what is.) This is why he had to be killed. The historical reasons were real. But they were the local, even surface, manifestation of the deeper reason which involved the re-orientation of the entirety of human history. (Hoo, boy. Nothing said here about the punitive demand of sin. Nothing said about man being unable to save himself and never being able to meet the requirements for absolution. Redemption through the sacrificial blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and the sacrifice of our Blessed Mother, seem to have no place within this perspective.)

Analogously, it is not very complicated, or illuminating, to figure out that women’s religious Life is being used as a symbolic scapegoat in the power struggle in the contemporary church between the promoters of the renewal initiated by Vatican II and a program of tridentine restoration. (Guess she's referring to the Traditional Latin Mass. Oh, the humanity!) Nor is it difficult to identify who have vested interests in the outcome of that struggle. (This is not to suggest that the stakes in this struggle are not very high or that we should be naïve about the extent of damage that could result.) (Want to know who will benefit from the outcome? The future of our Bride, the Church of Jesus Christ. Our children will benefit when they are blessed to have women religious who love the Church, support the Magisterium, and yes, submit to the high calling of being Catholic. Praise God.)

As empire and temple were threatened by the growing sense of empowerment among the oppressed in Palestine, so the absolutist power structure of the institutional church is threatened by the growing consciousness of the People of God of their identity and mission as the Body of Christ. As Jesus was an agent of empowerment (I must have missed this title in the Bible. I keep thinking of Him as being my Lord and Messiah.) who had to be eliminated before he “stirred up the people” and brought down the wrath of the empire on the nation, so those in the church, lay leaders, pastors, bishops, or others -- but especially sisters -- who are fostering the conciliar renewal must be brought under control lest the “crisis” Cardinal Rodé has named explode and bring about a radical claiming of their identity as the People of God and their mission to and in solidarity with the world God so loved.

But why the sisters? We must not overlook the crushing of lay initiatives, the banning of progressive bishops from traditionalist bishops’ dioceses, the brandishing of excommunications, refusal of the sacraments or Christian burial, and public condemnations of Catholic politicians and theologians, etc. as we examine the investigation of Religious. (This really goes beyond the pale. Who is she kidding? I think it's the other way around. There has been a systematic purging from seminaries, dioceses, and Catholic institutions of traditional Catholics and it's been going on for decades. I have heard of Catholic instructors being fired from their positions at a Catholic school for being pro-life or attending the Traditional Latin Mass.) This is not a historically unique occurrence and Religious women are not alone as its objects.

But sisters are a particularly important target for several reasons. First, their sheer numbers and influence. (which Deo Gratias, are waning...) Women religious are not only people who are voluntarily engaged in the life they lead because they are passionately committed to its spiritual and ministerial goals and to Jesus Christ who called them to this life. They are also the largest, best organized, most geographically ubiquitous, most ministerially diversified, and therefore probably most effective promoters of the vision of Vatican II. In some eyes, of course, this means that, as so many lay Catholics have testified, religious are the greatest source of hope for the contemporary church. In other eyes, this means that they are the most serious danger to the “real (that is, pre-conciliar) Church” which these people are trying to restore.

Full Article

The rest of the article expresses the same whine: Vatican II meant we can do what we want. Big, Bad Rome won't let us become priests. Yada, yada, yada.

The bottom line is that liberalism's lie has been exposed. The interpretation of Vatican II by these "dissenters" has done more harm than good. Their communities are dying out and at least one generation left the Catholic Church over their divisive bickering and weak spiritual formation. But things are changing. How ironic that those who heralded the changes of Vatican II with a sharp "get over it" to the faithful who questioned it, are now resisting change because it wears a biretta.

I know, Sister. Change is hard.

My Response to the National Catholic Reporter's Editorial: Nostalgia Is Not a Path to the Future

I just spent the last hour reading The National Catholic Reporter's editorial and the diverse comments that followed. Quite a bit of sniping, as you can imagine. I'm not interested in going to the mat with Novus Ordo-ites. Their spiritual life is between them and God and if they are growing deeper in their faith, that is a beautiful thing.

However, I can't help but wonder how a Catholic newspaper can justify slamming a Cardinal because he was the one chosen for what I'm sure is the unpleasant task of evaluating [some of] the women religious in America. The NCR goes on to make further digs at those who love the Traditional Latin Mass. How charitable of them.

Although most of the comments occurred between November 10-12, I decided to post mine. I'm not sure if anyone is still reading it or, if my comment will be approved. For what it's worth, my post is below:

You don't want to go down that road...
If you saw the film "The Matrix," there is a scene where Trinity is imploring Neo not to leave and forget about his quest. If he left, he only would have dead-end streets that would hold no answers for his questioning mind. Well, I had questions about the Roman Catholic Church, which is why I left it when I was 20 years old. I was "bored" by the Mass, no matter how "friendly" it tried to be. I ended up in the non-denominational church for almost 20 years and believe me, this is what many Catholics are so yearning to have: vibrant worship, the laity performing the work of the church, and a deeper commitment to spiritual growth; among other things.

You may (or may not) be surprised to know that there is a great deal of confusion in these churches. What some progressive Catholics desire to have has resulted in nothing less than the dilution of Christian faith in these non-denominational churches (of which many ex-Catholics are now members). There has been a two-pronged attack on the Church for decades, both from the radical elements of feminism and homosexuality. Show me a church that has given in to these radical elements and I'll show you a church that is more irrelevant to the world today than they could possibly imagine. The Kingdom of God has been hijacked by the fickle whims of man.

This editorial speaks of a "nostalgia." Why is it considered nostalgia to prefer the traditions of the Church? There are so many assumptions made with this editorial that it's tough to decide which to tackle. But I'll take the "dressings of royalty" paragraph.

Has it ever occurred to those who slam the vestments that there is a reason for them? Do these detractors believe that the Vatican just pulled it all out of a hat? I've read the comments and yes, Jesus Christ came from a very humble family and certainly was not wealthy. However, He also stated that He did not come to destroy The Law but fulfill it. Do you think He avoided attending Temple? The celebration of the Feasts? The traditions of Judaism? Of course not. All of it held meaning, just as our liturgy holds meaning for us today. The Traditional Latin Mass, (which yes, I've fallen in love with) is filled with "types" and "shadows" having to do with Jesus Christ and His mystical union with His Bride, the Church. Just because there's not a group of twentysomethings rocking it out on guitars and drums doesn't mean this more traditional rite is "dead."

"Facing a wall, with his back to the people" is one of my hot buttons. The truth is, the priest is facing East, as prescribed by Mosaic Law. The priest is facing the High Altar, which is symbolic of Jesus Christ, and also facing the tabernacle, a sanctuary where Jesus Christ dwells. Why would a priest not face Jesus Christ? When he faces "the people," several things usually occur. 1) The celebration of the liturgy becomes personality-centric and 2) the congregation loses focus of where their attention should be. When ever another Catholic says to me, "Oh, you attend the Latin Mass? Isn't that where the priest has his back to the people?" I immediately say, "No. He is facing Jesus Christ and is leading everyone else to do the same."

Whether you like the "New Mass" or Latin, whether you want to see Vatican II continue to "speak" to the current culture around us - the bottom line to ask yourself is whether you're growing as Christian to the point where you will be willing to be a martyr. If so, great. Because ultimately, that is what is required of us - the willingness. Whether some want to recognize it or not, the world is becoming darker. And the world hated (hated... like crucifixion-hatred) Jesus Christ. Jesus told us the world hated Him and would hate his followers. Are you willing to be hated by the world?

To me, editorials like this and some of the comments are nothing more than rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic. As Christians, we're going to have more opportunities to stand for truth. Not the world's "truth" regarding equality, social justice, and solidarity with the poor. The truth that says Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Not politics. Radical Islam is bent on destroying all who will not submit to them. Ever hear of Knights of Malta? We're about to relive it.

So have your "tit-for-tat" debates, NCR. But in the end, ask yourself if you're really doing your beloved progressives a favor by not telling them what the real spiritual battle is about. Because somehow I doubt that women ordained as priests and gays being allowed to marry is really going to make one bit of a difference when either a radical Islamofascist or a dictatorship government comes knocking on our door.

Carol Marin: You're Wrong

I just read this morning an astonishing piece from The Chicago Times about the Vatican's investigations of American convents. Written by Carol Marin, it drips with superiority toward Catholicism, as though this age is the first that has directly collided with truth.

An excerpt:

Rome, according to the New York Times, is "quietly conducting two sweeping investigations of American nuns, a development that has startled and dismayed nuns who fear they are the targets of a doctrinal inquisition."

Just when you thought Catholic bishops couldn't find another way to infuriate the flock, darn it, they've done it again.

Both probes were reportedly initiated by Conservative prelates unhappy that American nuns are not sufficiently toeing the line of Catholic orthodoxy, not wearing habits, not living in convents and not keeping their mouths shut about the concerns of women in a modern world.

Don't these sisters know their place?

Carol Marin is only one of many who erroneously believe that the life of a woman religious is primarily about bringing "peace and justice" to the world. It's not. It's about a woman hearing the call of God upon her life to separate herself even more from the world in order to serve Him. Serving their Spouse, Jesus Christ, requires trust and obedience. But what are they to obey? The ever-changing whims of the world, determined to live in darkness while denying God? Or are women religious to obey the call to a higher spiritual life, continuing to extend the light that will draw the world to Him?

The snark of Marin with her smug "don't they know their place" only exposes her outdated style of feminism. In her world, it's evident that women who follow the Magisterium are nothing more than dumb cows, lumbering toward whatever direction they're herded. Conversely, with that short judgement she also presumes that if you are a "thinking women," then of course you must dissent with the Magisterium. To which I say, baloney.

Marin doesn't realize that Christians are called to a life of sacrifice and self-denial. In case she missed it, I'll make it clear: It isn't about 'my' needs, Carol Marin. It isn't about whether I should be ordained as a priest, have the 'right' to have an abortion if I want, or pursue a deviant life of sexuality. It's. Not. About. Me. In fact, the day I committed my life to Christ was the day when I handed over the keys to Him and said, "You drive." My job from then on was to trust that God knew the best routes to take me to the destinations He planned for me.

I get so weary of these types of articles because they deliberately obfuscate the true meaning of being a Christian. Feminists, and God help us, "Christian" feminists - continue to get it wrong again and again but yet rarely are they engaged in the public arena. And when they are, the media delights in painting a woman's opposing view as being "backward" and ignorant of today's societal needs.

Marin goes on. (My responses are in red):

There can be good reasons for the church to conduct a study of its nuns. Their numbers are declining fast. Their communities are shrinking. And we all could, in whatever work we do, profit from studying how well we're performing. (Marin failed to do due diligence. Convents such as Our Lady of the Angels Monastery, showed 36 in the picture, 8 of them looked to be novices. Why is it the more orthodox orders don't seem to be struggling as much with their communities? Ever ask that question, Carol?)

But frankly, these investigations are really about dissent in the Catholic Church and how to stop it. You know, women's ordination, homosexuality, birth control, abortion and celibacy. (So what if it is? If someone is a Catholic, let alone a religious, and not only do they not agree with the Magisterium but seek to lead others into dissension - you don't think the Vatican should be concerned? The Vatican has the responsibility for teaching the truth. If these nuns who are in such dissent do not or cannot agree with the Magisterium, they're in the wrong place. They should have left the Catholic Church long ago and joined the Unitarians.)

And this process is nothing more than an assertion of control. (Wrong. It's the promotion and fidelity to truth. Only someone who is hardheaded and unrepentant would mistakenly believe this is an issue of control. It is an attempt to reconcile those who are in error with the Church.) Because the conclusions of the studies will stay confidential, the sisters may never know the outcome. But just by conducting the probes, the bishops are warning the sisters to sit a little straighter in their chairs. (Poke, poke.)

Am I missing something here? Were the recent, awful church scandals about nuns? Don't think so. (Sigh. Now Marin completes a neat twist with her rusty pen and stabs it into a completely different topic. By comparing a justifiable examination by the Vatican into the lives of convents with the sexual abuse cases of the past, Marin childishly tries to shift blame. Which is ridiculous. Pope Benedict XVI has continuously addressed the tragic situation and the Catholic Church is working to remedy the situation. And again - do due diligence, Marin. Ever heard of sexual abuse of women by nuns? Didn't think so.)

Too bad that Marin only had an 84-year old nun to consult for this story. Maybe she was running behind on her deadline but I suspect she went into the story with her mind made up. Little things like centuries of tradition and the Scripture don't fit her narrative. Only by framing the conversation by placing women (once again) as victims of the Big Bad Church in Rome would she be able to vent her misplaced irritations. Sad.

Update:

Last night, I came across John Powers' article "She's At It Again: Ms. Marin at the Ministry of Media Manipulaton." Powers is the President of the Chicago Daily Observer. I think he nailed it by noting the commenters were better informed than a journalist working for a major newspaper.

An added thought:

Carol Marin presumes much when she says:

Just when you thought Catholic bishops couldn't find another way to infuriate the flock, darn it, they've done it again.

In this instance, she believes her own press. Assuming that Catholics are "irritated" by their bishops, she again shows her bias toward church leadership. (And this, yet, during the "Year For Priests" which was recently announced by Pope Benedict XVI.) Perhaps from Marin's view she thinks Catholics are "infuriated," but from my vantage point - they are relieved. From the conversations at my parish and Catholic communities online, I continue to hear "Thank God the Vatican is finally stepping in." These Catholics for many years have seen their faith continue to be ridiculed, minimized, and mocked at times by those who supposedly took vows to uphold the continuity of it. Mixing Eastern Mysticism with Christianity doesn't work. The two do not dance well together and unfortunately, it is taking the strong arm of the Vatican to separate them.

If I ever spoke to Carol Marin, I would gladly explain why I feel so strongly on this subject. My weak spiritual formation was the direct result of Nuns Gone Wild. I know they meant well at the time, but the effects of their experimentation with pop-psychology, wrongheaded attempts at ecumenism, and dabbling with Eastern mysticism (and for some - a sympathy toward witchcraft) - together failed to educate at least two generations of Catholics about their Catholic identity. Many left the Catholic Church as a result. As for me, I couldn't toss a peanut in a non-denominational church without hitting at least three "ex-Catholics." So, yes. I feel very strongly about this topic.

Today I will deliberately stop any nun who is wearing her habit and thank her for her service. The wearing of the habit is now a sign to me that a nun understands her vows. To me, it is a beautiful sign and one the world sorely needs. Enough with the frustrated nuns who have turned sweet wine into vinegar. For all of their insistence that the Vatican allow them their games, they have ended up with the smaller team and quite frankly, fewer want to play in their league.

Meanwhile, those who are faithful to the Magisterium are realizing that at the bottom of the ninth, with all bases loaded - they've got a major player at the plate who will rock the house for them. Plus, there is a small but growing number of women waiting to join the team with their eyes on the prize - Jesus Christ.

I couldn't have returned to the Church at a better time.

The Real Purpose of Womenpriests?

Most traditional Catholics are aware of the bogus group, "Womenpriests" who continue to insist upon fake ordinations in order to validate their own pursuit of power. I've expressed my opinion in older entries; but now realize there may be something more dangerous underneath their pathetic ceremonies and defiant declarations that Rome is behind the times.

From the Wall Street Journal came this:

The Womenpriests come from a dissenting feminist tradition in the Catholic Church -- one in which a leading religious sister has even declared the Eucharist "defective and inadequate" for women. (!!!!)This tradition argues for renewing the church with a model "not geared to a hierarchy but inclusivity," as Ms. Meehan explains it. But those who are faithful to Rome argue that it is precisely the focus on the Eucharist -- and Christ's identity -- that necessitates an all-male priesthood. In 1994, Pope John Paul II declared that "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women."

"The Problem With Liberation Ordination" by Kathryn Jean Lopez

So now we get to the heart of it.

The Catholic church service is called the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for good reason. The Passion of Christ is remembered with the priest standing as both a High Priest offering the sacrifice and an icon of Christ, re-enacting the most momentous event in the history of mankind - when God accepted the sacrifice of His Son to atone for the sin of the world.

When Catholics think of this - really think of it, the only correct response is awe, humility, repentance, and deep gratitude. Jesus Christ told His disciples that whenever they took the bread and wine, they were consuming His Body and Blood. It is a deeply sacred and mystical moment, one that will affect everyone who gives serious consideration to what is transpiring during the Mass.

The Mass is what holds Roman Catholics together throughout the world. If Catholics had to go underground because of persecution (and many already have done this or are doing it...), the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass would hold true and continue to bind them together.

What better way to destroy the Roman Catholic Church than try to minimize the importance of the Eucharist? It's evil, plain and simple, and any woman or man who denies the Real Presence ought to be lovingly corrected and if they still resist, removed from fellowship according to Matthew 18:15-17.

The Womenpriests are dangerously conniving and try to hide their manipulation behind an argument of fairness. If they were to succeed in destroying the sacredness of the Eucharist, what do you suppose would happen? Nature, as it's said, abhors a void. The Eucharist would need to be replaced with something - and that something is elevating man as god. Remove Jesus Christ and you remove the need of man for a Savior.

Because Womenpriests know that the obstacle toward their goal is the Eucharist, they will begin to try to celebrate Mass with the intent upon relegating the Real Presence into simply a snack. It will hold no meaning, just a watered-down reminder that Jesus was the Son of God. But it won't stop there. They'll begin to say Jesus was a "good teacher" among many teachers. It will open the door for more "inclusivity" of other religions. There will be intra-religious services celebrated, all in the name of "acceptance" and "tolerance."

Meanwhile, the Real Presence will be gone, thought of as nothing more than an outdated belief that has no purpose for these "progressive" women. I ask you, "progressives," what are you progressing toward? It would seem a destination I'm trying to avoid, and I know I'm not the only one.

These exercises of grand presumption are accomplishing nothing more than exposing them for what they are - caught up with the folly of the world while denying that God has a purpose, a plan, and a hierarchy for a reason.

It is to their eternal detriment that they continue to "kick against the goads." We need to continue to pray that the scales of blindness fall from their eyes.

Still Revolting - Womenpriests and Their Folly

It's been all over the news lately. A bunch of Catholic women from Boston calling themselves "Womenpriests" were supposedly "ordained" on Sunday, July 20. Flaunting their rebellious attitude toward the Vatican's stand on prohibiting women from becoming priests, this group said the three women who were ordained "are responding to a heartfelt call to serve the church as priests." (MN to The Curt Jester)

Do they not read the Bible? Here are a few verses they might have missed. And isn't it interesting that it's from a letter by St. Peter?

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
(1 Pet. 2:13-17 RSV)

If St. Peter was telling the Roman Christians to not be lawbreakers of any human institution, how much more should they not be lawbreakers of their faith? How much more important is obedience and submission to Jesus Christ and His Bride, the Church?

Here is another interesting portion from St. Peter's second letter. It's long, but I wanted to place the verse I was reading to be placed in context of what was said:

For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment;if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven other persons, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomor'rah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked (for by what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.

Bold and wilful, they are not afraid to revile the glorious ones,whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a reviling judgment upon them before the Lord. But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and killed, reviling in matters of which they are ignorant, will be destroyed in the same destruction with them, suffering wrong for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their dissipation, carousing with you.(2 Pet. 2:4-13)

St. Peter connected those who indulged in their own lust with those who defiled authority. The two usually go together.

Not only does scripture condemn such willful behavior and remind us that we have died to Christ, no longer living for our own pleasure (Gal. 2:20), but there is a call to live a holy life of submission to both government and the Church. Of course there are times when we cannot bow to the false idols of a corrupt government (and the early Christians died because of their refusal to do so), but living a life of submission is the believer's calling.

If you read the New Testament, it doesn't take long to see there is a pattern between those who despise authority and those who are submissive. The former are judged, the latter are blessed. There are promises for those who live their life in submission to God but warnings for those who insist on doing things their way.

My beef with this whole mess is this: Do these women believe in any authority at all? It would seem not. If not, then why maintain membership within a church that recognizes such a hierarchical chain of authority?

It's as though the women have a bad case of schizophrenia. On one hand they want the authority of being a priest but on the other, they are destroying any power of that very authority by their refusal to submit to it.

You can't have it both ways, ladies. You can send a Goodyear Blimp to sail across St. Peter's Square with the message "WE ARE ORDAINED" but saying it over and over, won't make it true.

Madison, Wisconsin Church Nixes Altar Girls

I wanted to post my two cents on this topic here for the sake of future reference. (Mazomanie Church Nixes Altar Girls)

Recently, a church in Mazomanie has notified parents that girls will no longer be allowed to assist at the altar. Years ago, Pope John Paul II signed off on this issue but there are accounts that his signature may have been affected by his illness and a 104 degree temperature.

Nevertheless, I don't believe young girls should have ever been given this role. Aside from the fact that young boys have a tendency to shy away from anything that girls are doing, there is the issue of priesthood and vocation. The Catholic church could use a few more good men in the ranks and most priests started thinking about their vocation as they served as altar boys. When young girls are included, it sends a mixed signal. What would a little girl aspire to be if she is serving in this position? Ordination?

This is precisely what I believe many "progressive" Catholics want. They truly envision a day when women will be ordained as priests. And what would this do to convents and cloistered monasteries? Why can't we encourage our young daughters to consider the vocation of being a nun?

So, here is my response to the article:

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a political football field, awaiting those who disagree with it to make a strategic play.

1) The priest is an icon of Christ. Assisting the priest during the Mass has been done by acolytes, those who wished to become priests. They have always been male.

2) Jesus Christ could very well have named one of the women following Him to be a fully recognized Apostle. (Mary, His mother, Mary Magdalene, or Mary of Bethany to name a few.) He didn't. Women have no Biblical justification for demanding ordination.

3) Young boys need strong leadership and guidance at this age. Aside from the snide sexual remarks made - it is a fact that when young boys want to get together, the presence of a young girl seriously hampers any useful purpose for their growth.

4) The Catholic church is lacking in priestly vocations. Part of the reason is liberal spiritual formation and seminaries. Another part of this is because young boys have difficulty hearing the call to this vocation if young girls are included in this area. It's confusing.

The purpose of the Mass isn't to satisfy a longing to be recognized. It is to remember the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ and worship Him. It's not first about community - but about God.

Finally, if some don't like it, there are plenty of other churches: United Methodist, Unitarian, or even the Metropolitan Community Church. It's not that difficult in this day and age to find a church you can agree with.

Roman Catholic Womenpriests Movement Claim Bogus Support

I caught this recent entry on Fr. Z's blog. (Get out your bells, books, and candles! Canada: another attempted ordination) I commented a few times before realizing I should just head on over to my own neck o' the woods and continue my thoughts.

The group is Roman Catholic Womenpriests and they're mighty agitated by the latest Vatican decree that any bishop ordaining women as priests would be excommunicated along with the women. If you read this group's response, you'd see a multitude of presumptions and failed reasoning. One of the erroneous conclusions in this press release has to do with the percentage of Catholics they claim as supporting ordaining women.

Here is the excerpt in question:

In obedience to Jesus, we are disobeying an unjust law. The Catholic Church teaches that a teaching or law of the church is authoritative only if it is “received” by the sensus fidelium, the community of faith. If the community of faith does not accept the law, it has no effect on us. All people have a moral obligation to disobey an unjust law. St. Augustine taught that an unjust law is no law at all. Since 70% of U.S. Catholics favor women’s ordination and a growing majority of Catholics worldwide also favors women’s ordination, we do not “receive” or accept the Church's prohibition against the ordination of women and the church’s continued reliance on sexist metaphors, beliefs and assumptions for denying ordination to women.

I wondered how they arrived at that number - 70%. That's a lot of people. It's enough to make any conservative say, "Hmmm. I suppose I'm in the minority." However, before you go down that road, let's investigate.

Because I rarely trust poll numbers and because I want substantial reasoning for such a bold claim, I hunted for proof. And, I found it in a not-too-surprising place.

The "70%" refers to a poll taken in Boston among Catholics:

Large majorities of Boston-area Catholics say the church should open up the ranks of clergy to women and to noncelibate men, according to a Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll.

The archdiocese-wide survey of 800 adult Catholics was taken Feb. 4-6 by KRC/Communications Research. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

So in other words, the RCW group is trying to pass off 560 Boston Catholics as the entirety of U.S. Catholics to show a majority. Which is preposterous but there you have it.

I may be mistaken, but I get the impression that The Boston Herald leans left when it comes to reporting Catholic news (or is it they bash Catholicism? I often get the two confused.). But at best, the RCW group is being disingenuous with their quote and at worst, diabolically deceptive.

One of the comments on Fr. Z's blog entry asked if these women were so upset by the Roman Catholic Church's position on women in the priesthood, why don't they leave? Good question. Unfortunately, instead of heading over to the nearest Methodist congregation, they've decided to try to be a thorn in the side of Rome.

I wonder when they'll realize that Rome is clothed in armor and their thorns won't do much damage. If only their energy could be channeled toward more productive things for the Kingdom.

So Who Are These Bishops? Vatican Says No to Bishops Ordaining Women As Priests

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican issued its most explicit decree so far against the ordination of women priests on Thursday, punishing them and the bishops who try to ordain them with automatic excommunication.

Vatican Says Will Excommunicate Women Priests

So who are these bishops who insist on defying Rome? What do they know that I don't know?

At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I cannot help but wonder how much of the Sacrament of Holy Orders they understand (or not). Being called to the priesthood is not a political act. It has nothing to do with the "social norms of the times." It is all about Christ and His Headship over His Church, which is His Body.

There is a hierarchal order that makes up the church. God is immutable and the typography of headship is seen from the very beginning with Adam all the way to Jesus Christ as King of King and Lord of Lords.

It is amazing to me how some of these women who think they should be ordained don't consider that Jesus Christ could have chosen women as some of the twelve apostles if it had been the will of God. Jesus was more than willing to break societal norms during that time. He spoke to a Samaritan woman, He defended a woman who was caught in adultery instead of allowing her to be stoned to death, and He allowed a woman who had a questionable background to touch His feet in adoration.

I don't think Jesus Christ was all that concerned with the "political-correctness" of the day. So I've never bought into that as a reason to ordain women.

In the Old Testament, the High Priest went before God as a mediator between Israel and God. He was making atonement for their sins. Men were chosen for this role. It didn't mean that women had no place in the worship of God. They did and the prayers of many of the Old Testament women changed the course of history. But in my opinion, women were created to conceive and nurture; men were given the authority to govern. Later, Jesus Christ was another High Priest, acting as both mediator and the sacrificial Lamb to be slain.

This isn't to say that women cannot be leaders. I've met some phenomenal women leaders in the church. But the ones that truly impressed me were those who looked at themselves as humble servants, passionately embracing God's plan for their life. They weren't demanding to be acknowledged as a leader. They weren't making lots of noise to gain attention. They simply prayed, recognized God's direction, and followed Him.

I've run into plenty of these type of women who want to be noticed. They often masquerade it as being "progressive" or a desire to bring "justice" into the church. Scratch the surface just a little and you'll often see a woman who is, in her most hidden moments, insecure. A secure woman doesn't need to chase after ordinations or fancy titles in order to be "taken seriously." She knows she is already taken seriously by God. Look at what He has done for women! Such mercy! Such generosity! Such lovingkindness! My heart sings with His praises when I look at what He has done for women and with women throughout the ages.

One of my favorite passages of Scripture is Luke 8:1-3 (ASV) where it says:

"And it came to pass soon afterwards, that he went about through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good tidings of the kingdom of God, and with him the twelve, and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary that was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out,,and Joanna the wife of Chuzas Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, who ministered unto them of their substance."

These were women of substance in more ways than one. They had the monetary means to support Jesus Christ and His twelve and followed Him unconditionally. They were just thrilled to be near Him and did everything they could to make His life a little smoother.

This may be why this issue grates on my nerves. Because every time I see a woman insisting that women should be ordained, I think of Mary Magdelene, Joanna, Susanna, and the "many others" who unselfishly ministered to Him without any thought of themselves.

Oh, to have the heart of these women!