Everybody has an opinion when the Vatican makes pronouncements concerning sex and gender.
Everybody who is a Catholic, was a Catholic, is in love with a Catholic, is married to a Catholic (not necessarily a sub-set of the previous category), was taught by Catholics, was taught to hate Catholics, or who now reviles Mel Gibson—meaning pretty much everybody in the world—wants to comment when the Vatican says, as it said a couple of days ago, that the ordination of female priests deserves pretty much the same punishment as sexual molestation of children and the disabled.
If you haven’t been following this story, you’ll think I’m exaggerating, but I’m not.
Here’s what the Vatican’s internal prosecutor, Msgr. Charles J. Scicluna, said from the news conference in Rome, when asked to explain why ordination of women was included alongside of rulings concerning sexual exploitation of children and the disabled by male (of course male—what other kinds are there?) priests: “Sexual abuse and pornography are more grave dealings, they are an egregious violation of moral law. Attempted ordination of women is grave, but on another level; it is a wound that is an attempt against the Catholic faith on the sacramental orders.”
A report from the AP by Nicole Winfield explained that “the rules … list the attempted ordination of a woman as a ‘grave crime’ to be handled according to the same set of procedures as sex abuse—despite arguments that grouping the two in the same document would imply equating them. … Scicluna defended the inclusion of both sex abuse and ordination of women in the same document as a way of codifying two of the most serious canonical crimes against sacraments and morals that the congregation deals with. ‘They are grave, but on different levels,’ he said, and noted that the document also lists crimes against the sacraments including apostasy, heresy and schism for the first time. (Read the AP article here.)
There have been, as I’ve said, many opinions on the matter. I was encouraged to learn from a piece in The Washington Post that U.S. Catholic editor Bryan Cones responded to the Vatican’s rules by saying “Quite frankly, it is an outrage to pair the two, a complete injustice to connect the aspirations of some women among the baptized to ordained ministry with what are some of the worst crimes that can be committed against the least of Christ’s members. …This move is a mistake, plain and simple, imprudent at best, at worst a serious further blow to Rome’s already damaged credibility.”
Gene Weingarten and I once discussed a version of the anti-feminist/anti-woman stance of the Church in one of Gene’s Washington Post columns titled “Gina Gets Cross; Why do you think they call it Ro-man Catholicism?” Weingarten’s column begins as follows: “After reading the Vatican’s recent pronouncement on men and women—in particular, its condemnation of modern feminism as a malevolent, divisive force that devalues the family and sabotages sanctified gender roles—I thought this might be an interesting, provocative subject for discussion with Gina Barreca, my feminist co-author. But Gina declined, on the grounds that, as a Roman Catholic, she’d be in an awkward position if she had to criticize the document. In fact, she didn’t even plan to read it.
“Being a sensitive person and a supportive friend and colleague, I understood her concerns. Then I anonymously e-mailed it to her under the subject line, ‘Researchers at Sorbonne prove female humor is superior.’ It worked. Gina opened it, and once she started, she couldn’t stop.”
And I couldn’t.
We continue the discussion as follows:
Gina: The Vatican is not “women.” It knows nothing about women because it is made up of people who are not women, and who are not intimate with women, and who spend no appreciable time with women. And so their view of women is sentimentalized and condescending, the way European explorers regarded the first black people they saw: “By Jove, Farnsworth, these primitives have good rhythm.” Except with women, the Vatican would be referring to contraception.
Gene: Now, calm down.
Gina: No.
Gene: In support of the Vatican’s position — and I’m just playing the devil’s advocate here . . .
Gina: Ha-ha!
Gene: . . . the church does say it has no problem with women working outside the house or seeking serious careers, and it praises some things it considers particularly female virtues, such as “listening, welcoming, humility and faithfulness.”
Gina: Yes, it does! Unfortunately, these are not virtues that tend to advance the power and prestige of women worldwide. You do not generally see CEOs wanting to change places with their cleaning ladies so they can become more empathetic. If a woman is applying for a scholarship to Harvard, she is not likely to put on her résumé: “Am good at loving unconditionally.”
(Read the whole article here.)
That was in 2004. In six years, I have less respect for the Church fathers and less hope for Vatican. That’s too bad, especially for me and for other lapsed or “recovering” Catholics. I live with the hope that one day I might be able to have affection for the Church of my youth and live, disappointed, with what I am told by Rome.
crossposted with Psychology Today
13 Responses to Cardinals’ Rules? Rome’s Mistakes.
deanette - July 17, 2010 at 10:27 pm
You’re so entirely damn==, it’s comforting to know I’ll see you where we’re going to end up! Kudos.
jffoster - July 18, 2010 at 7:52 pm
“Everybody has an opinion when the Vatican makes pronouncements concerning sex and gender.”What, everybody? Unless you count no opinion as an opinion, I don’t belong in your “everybody”. It’s their church; they can ordain or refuse to ordain whom they ever please for what reason they ever choose.
livefreeordie2 - July 19, 2010 at 12:08 am
Personally, I think Martin Luther had the right idea. That said. . . There is a difference between religion and government. Governments are about public policy and an individual has little choice about the government under which he or she lives. That’s why there are courts and elections and all manner of methods by which people can make their view known and try to initiate change.When it comes to religion, however, you don’t have to be a Catholic. I know that’s shocking to some, but it’s true. Religion is more like fast food than like government. If you don’t like the french fries at Wendy’s, then you can go to McDonalds. If you don’t like the fact that the Roman Catholics don’t ordain women, you can become an Episcopalian. Believe me, they are pretty much exactly the same, but you can use birth control, they have women priests, priests can marry, and you can even have a homosexual bishop, though that is still causing problems. Or, you can go Lutheran. They have become pretty liberal in the last 50 years. Or any of dozens of other Christian denominations.The point is this. The Catholic Church is what it is. . .and they have a right to their own doctrine! I mean, all Christian denomination recite the Nicene Creed, if I’m not mistaken, but beyond that, they each do things their own way. Would you go into a McDonalds and demand that they serve a Whopper? Why bother – just go to Burger King. Frankly, I disagree with a lot of Catholic Doctrine, but I respect Catholic leadership for sticking to their beliefs. They don’t need to change. . . if you don’t like it, they you should change to a denomination that suits your beliefs.
goxewu - July 19, 2010 at 8:23 am
We hold these truths to be, well, semi-self-evident:1. The Catholic Church has the right to ordain “whomever they please for whatever reason they choose.”2. Gina Barreca–and anyone else–has the right to say whatever he/she chooses about the Catholic Church’s ordination policies.And, apparently, these truths, are less evident:3. The Catholic Church is a great big in-the-world institution with lots of property, money and political clout. So its policies (e.g. prohibition of artificial methods of birth control in overpopulated poor mostly Catholic countries, or sequestering pedophile priests from the civil criminal justice system, holding lots and lots of tax-exempt property, running big-time college sports programs) affect a lot of non-Catholics.4. The policies of the Catholic Church have changed over the centuries, the decades, the years. Which is to say that, like the Latin-only mass, the men-only ordination could be changed. (I doubt it, but it’s possible, or a breakaway church of considerable size is possible–’tis the way of Christianity, you know.)5. Lots of people are part of lots of institutions in which they disagree with some important policy or another, and they feel enough a part of those institutions that simply leaving them is a painful option. This is particularly true of religious denominations, from the seemingly whacko (e.g., the polygamous Fundamentalist LDS churches) to the establishment-traditional (e.g., the Catholic Church). “If you don’t like it, leave it” is a simplistic response to those people.
jffoster - July 19, 2010 at 8:28 am
No 2, Live free &c., Might we then characterize Episcopalians as Roman Catholics who want to be, er, Children of a Looser God?
livefreeordie2 - July 19, 2010 at 9:22 am
jffoster – I’m one of those people who would like to believe – who wants very much to believe – but for whom the whole thing just doesn’t add up. With what is happening to Christopher Hitchens, I prefer to play it safe. However, assuming there is a God, it’s already part of Christian dogma that he give us a choice. All the nutty rules about women priests or this or that sacrament come from people, not from God (okay, yes, I’m aware of the last supper – let’s not get too technical about sacraments here). So, I guess I’d say that it’s just Looser Children worshipping God.Gox – The power of the Catholic Church is immense – no doubt. But it does come from the faithful. Here in New England, the diocese has had to sell of a lot of its property and it’s power has been decimated by the pedophile priests sex scandal. The point is that Catholics can vote with their wallets and their feet. Whether or not that will impact Rome is another question. And you’re right that there have been changes – Vatican II was a big step forward. . . but those kinds of changes must necessarily come from the leadership structure. Perhaps they will make those changes someday. But Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Schlosskirche in Wittenberg in 1517. One of his major complaints was the sale of indulgences. And while the Vatican has tightly controlled it for nearly 450 years, rumors are that right people can still buy indulgences for the right price. So change is very, very slow.And I respectfully disagree that my suggestion to change denominations is a simplistic one. Religion – belief in God – is an act of faith. The rituals associated with that faith are manmade. Believe me, I understand the emotional attachment people can have to those rituals – on those occasions when I have tried to return to the church, the absence of the liturgy I knew growing up was one of the obstacles. But I think it would be somewhat self-indulgent to think they should go back a half a century simply because I don’t like the way they do it now. And that sentiment holds for Catholics that don’t like the manmade rules. I mean, the Pope is the guy for Catholics and if he says it’s a sin to use birth control or a canonical crime to ordain women, if you want to be a Catholic, you have to go along with it. I mean, one can express one’s opinion, but what’s the point of pretending to be one of the faithful if you don’t follow the rules? One doesn’t have to start up one’s own religion, there are plenty out there already. If what you believe and how you live your life is more like an Episcopalian than a Roman Catholic, then that’s probably where you belong (attachment to a particular liturgy notwithstanding).
jffoster - July 19, 2010 at 9:46 am
Rules that I like are divinely decreed or inherent in Nature. Rules I don’t like are nutty and manmade.
literarytype - July 19, 2010 at 10:38 am
This last line, from commenter #7, made me laugh into my second cup of coffee. Thank you for the succinct and deadly summation.
charliemarlow - July 19, 2010 at 2:50 pm
This blog and comments section is what people worry about with the internet. The level of knowledge and sophistication is, with all due respect, appalling. It’s quite American, though. We have no reluctance to display ourselves in front of others, regardless of how we look.
goxewu - July 19, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Re #9:And setting oneself up as intellectually above the fray and disingenuously trying to disinfect the insult “appalling” with an obviously pro form “with all due respect” is what? An example of having no reluctance to display himself in front of others as presumably knowledgeable and sophisticated regardless of how he actually looks, is what I’d say. And if charliemarlow wants to try to beat me with my own club, let him at least first venture an opinion on the subject of this thread so the rest of us can judge exactly how much more knowledgeable and sophisticated than we are he is.
livefreeordie2 - July 19, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Goxewu – Thank you. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
charliemarlow - July 20, 2010 at 10:09 am
I said “due” respect. There was a reason for that.To put it in more global terms, isn’t this like President Bush explaining to Muslims the true meaning of their religion? Catholicism has a couple thousand years of theological analysis. Some blogger critiquing some press conference from an ideological perspective is trivial, at best.Birth control, for instance, is not a political statement, though it may have some political consequences. Those consequences may be positive or negative politically, but they are not the foundation of the “policy.” There are laws/regulations (e.g. married priests) and there is doctrine. Catholic doctrine is not accepted because a pope said so. It is based on the tradition of the Church. The parts are all connected. If a pope announces a doctrine that is not in keeping with tradition, with what has been taught or implied all along, then it is not a doctrine.WIth Vatican II, much has been lost. I do go back 50 years because the fruits of the modernists are all too visible. See you at Tradtional Latin Mass.A blog/comments like this is so far off the mark I am sorry I wasted my time reading it, let alone responding to it. Next, let’s attack particle physics because there aren’t enough women in it and some researcher said he doesn’t like puppies. We can all chip in about another topic we know little or nothing about. But we know nuclear stuff is bad.We can have opinions, but, gosh, when we don’t know what they are based on, shouldn’t we acknowledge that? That’s the beauty of this forum…lots of hot air blowing in off the desert. Include me.
goxewu - July 20, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Re #12:1. No, it’s not like President Bush explaining to Muslims the true nature of their religion. a) The post is written by an aggreived Catholic. b) Catholic doctrine and policy are hardly secrets of the temple–they’re blathered all over for everybody to see. The Vatican has a press office, a newspaper, ambassadors, etc. If it doesn’t want other people voicing opinions about its rules and judgements, then it should keep them to themselves.2. Those of us in the real world don’t care much, and shouldn’t care much, about the “foundation of the ‘policy’ against birth control.” It’s the political–or rather, the economic, health and environmental–consequences we care about.3. Ah, “tradition.” It moves and changes slowly, but it moves and changes. That’s the difference between “tradition” and “fiat.” 4. “See you at Traditional Latin Mass.” I seem to recall that the Church has cracked down not only on its liberals, but also from time to time on its ultra-conservative breakaway clergy who think everything that’s happened in the Church since 1200 has been liberal dilution.5. “Next, let’s attack particle physics because there aren’t enough women in it.” Non-apt attempted parallel. What’s being attacked isn’t the equivalent of worshipping Jesus Christ in itself, but the equivalent of a university physics department that refuses to tenure women on the principle that the original twelve particle physicists weren’t women. The world’s biggest old boys club HQ’d in the Vatican says about the same thing as a reason for not ordaining women.6. “We can have opinions, but, gosh, when we don’t know what they are based on, shouldn’t we acknowledge that?” charliemarlow, who complains that the poster and commenters don’t know what they’re talking about, has supplied absolutely zero to this thread in terms of new info. And since he’s a Catholic and a putative expert and doesn’t bring any more to the table than we do, what’s to “acknowledge”? 7. “Lots of hot air blowing in off the desert. Include me.” Is that an apology?