A reader writes:
Mr. Akin:
I thought this article would interest you.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/14688209.htm
The article is about a group of people in the San Jose area who are attending "Masses" celebrated by (among others) a woman who claims to have been ordained to the priesthood.
The article discusses other woman who are also about to undergo putative ordinations to the priesthood–apparently by women who have undergone putative ordinations to the episcopacy.
This "line" of ordinations extends back to the ceremony that was conducted a few years ago on Danube river. Subsequently, some of the Danube ordinands reported that they had been consecrated as bishops by unnamed bishops who are in communion with Rome.
Now, based on the activity of the women claiming the episcopacy, this movement is spreading (as it has been already) to the United States.
The Diocese of San Jose has issued warnings to the faithful that the sacraments celebrated by the individuals in question are not valid.
Regrettably, the San Jose Mercury News decided to pour this story into the standard "reformers longing for change" mold and only included the bare minimum of material needed from those with the orthodox view needed to minimally guard against charges of only covering one side of the story.
Let’s keep all the folks involved or affected by this story in prayer.
The reader also writes:
I thought this part was interesting:
A dozen will be ordained in Pittsburgh on July 31, including Cordero and women from Carmel and Pismo Beach. Another woman — fearful that her bishop will quickly excommunicate her — will only say she’s from the Bay Area.
Aren’t the women who do this automatically excommunicated?
No, they’re not–or at least the Vatican has not handled prior cases in this way. Simulating the sacrament of holy orders does not carry with it the penalty of automatic excommunication, so for them to be automatically excommunicated they would have to be guilty of an offence that does carry that penalty.
The most likely such offenses are heresy and schism, but there would be problems with making these charges stick.
In regard to schism, the Church has not determined that simulating the sacrament of ordination is a schismatic act.
In regard to heresy, the act of simulating a sacrament is not itself heresy. "Heresy
is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of
some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (CIC 751), so heresy is the adoption of a particular mental state (willful doubt or denial) that must be declared or manifested externally in order to incur canonical censure (CIC 1330).
I suppose that one could argue that for a woman to attempt to undergo ordination to the priesthood could be construed as an external manifestion of belief in the possibility of women’s ordination, but the latter (i.e., belief in the possibility of women’s ordination) has not yet been judged to be a heresy.
That may surprise folks, but hold on a second and I’ll explain.
The definition of heresy requires that the truth that is doubted or denied must be one which must be believed with both divine faith (meaning it has been revealed by God as part of the deposit of faith) and Catholic faith (meaning that the Church has definitively proposed it so that it is infallible).
Some truths (e.g., the divinity of Christ) must be believed by divine faith and Catholic faith, but some only have to be believed by one OR the other. An example of a truth that must be believed by divine faith but not Catholic faith would be anything that God has taught in revelation and that the Church has not yet infallibly proposed (e.g.,–in my opinion–the fact that Judas is in hell). An example of a truth that must be believed by Catholic faith but not divine faith would be any truth that is closely enough connected with the truths in the deposit of faith that the Church has infallibly proposed it though the truth is not itself contained in the deposit of faith. For example: the fact that the Council of Trent was a valid ecumenical council.
At present, the Church has definitively proposed the fact that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood, so this truth must be believed with Catholic faith, but it has not yet made the determination of whether this is a truth that properly belongs to the deposit of faith or whether it is simply one closely connected with the deposit of faith that the Church can infer it and infallibly propose it.
Cardinal Ratzinger–in his Pre-16 days–wrote about this and made this point expressly. That is a theologically open question at this point, and since laws that impose penalties must be interpreted strictly (CIC 18), one does not occur excommunication for heresy unless it is clear that the doctrine one has denied is one that requires divine faith as well as Catholic faith.
Consequently, when the Danube Seven got ordained, their excommunications were handled simply as declared (ferendae sententiae) excommunications rather than automatic (latae sententiae) excommunications.
YOU CAN READ THE RELEVANT DECREES HERE (BE SURE TO SCROLL DOWN FOR THE SECOND DECREE).
This is in contrast to the way the Lefebvrite excommunications were handled, where it was expressly noted that the declaration of these excommunications had been incurred latae sententiae prior to their declaration.
YOU CAN READ THAT DECREE HERE.
We have to deal quickly with these women before this insanity finds much welcome here in the U.S. , though I’m sure the feminists are already salivating.
Professor Rue teaches at San Jose State University, the school which I attend.
The university newspaper also took a very biased view, subtely portraying her as some sort of visionary for the future of the Church. You should see the picture they took!
They did interview a friend of mine and he layed down the Church’s teaching clearly and concisely. Please, pray for us. The voices of truth are few, but they are there…but will anyone listen?
One of the flyers for her ‘Mass’ had a picture of the Empress Theodora on it with the subtitle: “Empress Theodora: Woman Priest”
Now if that’s not twisting evidence to suit your agenda, I don’t know what is.
one thing would be to put every appearance of the word *ordination* in quote marks when used in the sense of a woman’s “ordination”. that let’s people know it is their use of the word, not ours.
I once read in a book by Dr. Scott Hahn that Adam had sinned before he ever took a bite of the apple because he remained mute when the snake/devil tempted them in the garden. It was his responsibility to defend the family (Eve and himself). In this vein was Eve’s first sin the fact that she spoke up in place of Adam, stepping into a role that was not her own? And then isn’t this the same old sin that these women are committing?
Patricia,
I don’t think you should use Dr. Hahn’s extrapolation on the narration of the Fall of man to justify not ordaining women. there plenty of good arguments against women’s ordination without having to resort to Scott’s dubious idea.
Sorry Ed, I forgot to use quotation marks when referring to the ‘ordination’ of women.
Does anyone know the canonical penalties for impersonating a cleric? I doubt that they are automatic, but I assume that they are heavy and may include exommunication.
Jay,
…Canons 1379 and 1384, to name just two, authorize “a just penalty” against those who “simulate the administration of a sacrament” or who “illegitimately perform a priestly function”. The phrase “a just penalty” means that a penalty (e.g., restitution, interdict, excommunication) can be tailored to fit the crime. …
from:
http://www.canonlaw.info/blogarch05.htm
Personally, I’d have no problem with a sentence of excommunication.
off-topic for Michelle:
Go to
http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=7947
and check out the latest on the David Sharp fiasco on Mt. Everest. It names names of people who went past him (one group of climbers went on past to do their summit, then on the way down 8-9 hours later apparently decided to stop and “help”)
Money quote:
“Experienced expedition leaders on the mountain have voiced their opinion that the location of David should have made it possible, easy even, for 2 sherpas to put him in a sleeping bag and drag him down.”
There’s also a very informative photo graphic showing David’s location
I would actually prefer a sentence of excommunication. If people are automatically excommunicated for being ordained illicitly (like SSPX or the Chinese fiasco assuming the participants were sufficiently responsible for their actions) then it seems to me that they should be excommunicated for being “ordained” in a clearly invalid way and then calling themselves priests.
These priestesses will presumably be saying “masses” and perhaps hearing confessions (if they accept that sacrament) so we need to make clear that these are not Catholics.
Boy, the state of catechisis in the US is pretty bad if we have to make a lot of explicit statements like “Those ladies in liturgical garb are not Catholic priests.”
What about chimpanzees in liturgical garb waving around a large wafer? Do we need to warn about them, too?
Old Zhou: Yes, it is! 🙂
You think this is bad, think of all the people who’ve gotten the idea (wonder where?!??) that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene…
We have our work cut out for us.
David,
My comment was not meant to be a justification for not “ordaining” women—it was just to say that to my mind this is the same type of sin, and one that to varying degree many women are guilty, myself included.
I also read somewhere that it was necessary for Christ to come as a man and not as a woman to redeem the relationship between men and women. That his very gender as a man was needed in that regard, and that is another reason why He is the Bridegroom. Perhaps that also is Scott Hahn. I can’t remember.
How about this?
1. According to the “Doctrinal Commentary”, the doctrine that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone is not (at least, not yet) de fide credenda.
2. Thus denying it is not heretical (c.f. #5).
3. This teaching, however, is definitive tenenda (#11, 4th paragraph; c.f. #6).
4. Therefore, “[w]hoever denies these [definitive tenenda] truths would be in the position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.” (#6).
So,
(A) Does “no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church” mean “schismatic”?
(B) Did these women (and those who “ordained” them) deny the doctrine that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone?
Who knows, maybe the time is coming when the Church will be sued for gender discrimination and will be forced by the state to ordain people regardless of sex.
You would think that these impostors would not be willing to risk the spiritual well-being of “their flocks” on any chance–no matter how small they perceive it to be–that they are wrong about the validity of their ordination. That would seem to be such a crushing weight on a person’s conscience that it would seem to oblige a dissenter to forego pursuing a privilege like the priesthood, even if up till this point, they couldn’t be convinced that they were wrong about women’s “ordination”.
What’s with this notion of, “I can’t see that I’m wrong so it’s okay to risk my soul and the souls of others through my disobedience to the Church (who I admit is Christ’s Church or else I wouldn’t be calling myself ‘Catholic’ in the first place)”? I really do not understand it.
Karen,
Probably, to many of them, it’s all just pretend, anyway. Symbolic and all that. Risking an immortal soul? That’s so medieval, and unloving, and non-inclusive. They are way, way beyond that.
Regarding “At present, the Church has definitively proposed the fact that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood, so this truth must be believed with Catholic faith, but it has not yet made the determination of whether this is a truth that properly belongs to the deposit of faith or whether it is simply one closely connected with the deposit of faith that the Church can infer it and infallibly propose it.”
Doesn’t the “Responsum ad Dubium Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” contradict this?
This is nonsense.Canon law or not..I thought that the Great Pope John Paul II said this wasnt even to be discussed!!!…The U.S Bishops should address this as well as Rome. Clearly this is wrong and cannot be tolerated. I am sure however that we will pronlong and delay any action so as not to appear intolerant or hot tempered. How long did it take the Church to act on that Corpus Christi travesty?..It hasnt acted on China yet either? The church continues to suffer scandal .
Patricia,
your second idea sounds fine by me.
What’s the big deal?
The big deal is this. Women can not be priests. There are certain actions that only priests can do. These actions impart grace. People need grace to get into heaven.
Surely that couldn’t happen without violating the priniple of the separation of church and state.
“Surely that couldn’t happen without violating the priniple of the separation of church and state.”
Well, with the Church being a tax-free charitable organization, the government could threaten to withdraw that status, making church donations non-deductible (for those donating), and taxable for the churches receiving.
This would likely cause a drop in donations (which wouldn’t speak well of those donating) as well as making the money donated less effective for the church (because any excess would be taxed as “profit”).
I believe this WOULD be a violation of the seperation of church and state, but they might one day decide to try it, anyway. There is no need or precedent for church income to be taxed and it would end up hurting the goverment (not helping it) in the long run.
Doubtless, some bureaucrats think of the money they are NOT taxing as some sort of tacit support for religion, though this is manifestly false.
The government should neither monetarily support OR tax the Church. Just let it be. That’s why I am nervous about the Bush plan to support “faith-based” programs with tax money. It starts blurring the line.
OOPS: I haven’t gone mad folks: I intended prefacing the above comment with Francis DS’s earlier comment about the possibility of the Church being sued for gender discrimination. Thought I had done; obviously not.
Hey, Ed! I recently read an article on the National Catholic Reporter website by a nice woman named Sister Joan Chittister about this very same issue! You won’t believe all the merits it had!
Tim J. – I think you’re right to be nervous about such things. In Germany, to be registered officially at a parish (which is usually done when you want to receive a special sacrament like baptism, matrimony, confirmation, etc.) you’re suddenly on the roster as someone who has to pay the church tax. It’s not just Catholics, and the money (I believe) goes to all recognized churches, no matter the religion/denomination. Much of it goes to the upkeep of larger cathedrals like the one in Cologne, but people end up financially supporting religions that are not their own. In a way, it is actually a disincentive to be a member of a church as well. People are in a position where they must choose between God and a large chunk of money each year. The amount of money is not negligible, but I don’t remember off-hand what it is. It can be googled. People who become irreligious at some point find it very difficult to get out of the tax scheme, and you know how people are–they often place the blame (wrongly) on the Church/churches/religion. It fosters hostility towards religion among certain people.
I’m not sure why it is this way outside of possibly providing a way to fund these large cathedrals over here without being accused of giving preferential treatment, since most of those large cathedrals are Catholic cathedrals.
Last June, there were women “ordained” in the St. Lawrence River, which I commented on here.
Essentially, this is an act of public insanity, akin to Dukakis or Mondale ordering the U.S. military out of Iraq, as if they were the Commander-in-Chief. Just because somebody thinks and acts like they have a certain office does not necessarily make it so.
The argument that Christ didn’t ordain women because that wasn’t the tradition/culture of the time flies in the face of logic, when confronted with the personality of Christ. What did Christ ever do that was “socially/culturally acceptable” or “traditional”? Since Jesus knew that he was going to die for his teachings, why would he hold back on making one of the female disciples an Apostle out of fear of offending the dominant culture?
We need to pray for these lost, confused souls, as well as those that may become more confused by following their lead.
Didn’t the Chinese bishops who performed the illicit ordinations become automatically excommunicated? Wouldn’t the same thing apply to the bishops who “ordained” these women?
I think this is a matter that only gets worst by talking about it. It is so stupid, I can’t begin to pull out the list of counters to this trash.
It is as if they decided to make a monkey president ( a real monkey, not one who acts like one) who would listen to it. An idiot who doesn’t deserve to live. Excommunitcation is the only resort. They are gonna end up in Hell if they keep it up anyway. They are like the Pharisees, makeing their followers two times more dignant of Hell then themselves.
So women are a lower form of life no more deserving of this role than a monkey? Nice.
Right. That’s why the Church teaches that Mary is the highest of all created beings, far higher thatn the highest angels.
I thought the only reason the Catholics got hooked on Mary was to draw in the Pagans “back in the day”. After all, more pews=more souls, more souls=more money and more money=more power. If you ask me the early Church leaders were marketing geniuses.
Mr/Ms brave anonymous:
you are clearly ignorant of both Church teaching and Church history.
A word of advice: it is wiser to keep silent about a subject of which you know nothing, then you don’t look a complete fool.
MaryC,
Right on!
Anonymous,
I’m guessing you’re an Evangelical.
Anon,
I will assume the same person (you) wrote the last post on women and the one on Mary. It would be a good idea in the future to at least use a pseudonym (something original not likely to have been used by somone else) to avoid confusion.
About your posts, first concerning women. I agree that Some Day’s post was terrible. Probably you have heared people in your own denomination or whatever say something that has just made you cringe. If so you know what it is like, and you know not to judge a whole Church or even a viewpoint like that women can not be ordained by one rash comment by someone.
About Mary, she is the mother of Jesus and watched him die on the Cross. That alone ought to say something about why Catholics give attention to her. Our calling her Mother of God just means that she is the mother of Jesus, who is God. To deny the title is either to deny that Jesus is one person, a divine person, or to deny that Mary is the mother of that person. That title of Mary has everything to do with Christ, and does not in any way make Mary the origin of God. She is a creature, created by God, entirely dependent on Him throughout her life, gaining eternal life not by her merits but by those of her son on the Cross.
This is probably not the place to go through each Marian dogma or devotion and explain how each has specifically to do with God, but if you will look through some good Catholic sourses you can find that out for yourself.
I will mention that Marian devotion, if it is authentic, leads to Christ. I know this from personal experience. You could loosely compare it to a love of nature or anything else beautiful or endowed with gifts or grace from God drawing you to Him. One of the most fundamental changes that comes over the typical convert from Protestantism to Catholicism (like me) is when you realize how much “other stuff” when viewed correctly from a perspective of prayer and deep (at least begining to be deep) relationship with God stops being a distraction from God and starts drawing you closer to Him.
Marian devotion is not pagan, because Mary is not worshiped in Catholicism, and if it helps attract people because femininity is honored in Catholicism, well so much the better. You can not argue that something is a ploy to attract pagans just because some pagans were attracted to Mary, and as a result eventually became Christians. Judge the tree by its fruits.
Deserving has nothing to do with it. Nobody “deserves” to be a priest.
Being a priest is a blessing (a calling) from God, not a mere decision by a human being. As such, Karen is right – nobody “deserves” to be a priest any more than any of us sinners (transgressors of the law) deserve mercy or the love of God, especially that love demonstrated by Jesus on the Cross.
So, these women who are claiming to be priests are using their own decision making faculties to proclaim themselves priests, rather than the call (vocation) and ordering (ordination) by God.
The priestly life is a life of sacrifice. However, as I mentioned in my post from last year, these women are being ordained, regardless of marital status or sexual preference (among other traditional “disqualifiers”). If all is allowed and exercised, where is the sacrifice?
Evangelical? Sure, if there is such a thing as evangelical atheism.
Anonymous: the reason that J. R. and David B mistook you for an Evangelical, is because Bible-thumping Fundamentalists use the same spurious historical claims about the Catholic Church being rooted in paganism that atheists do to explain the spread of Christianity in general.
It sort of discredits you both in my eyes.
MaryC. said: ‘It sort of discredits you both in my eyes’.
I don’t understand, by saying ‘you both’ are you including J.R. and myself?
forgive me if I sound dumb 🙂
Mary C,
Never mind. I see the correct meaning of it now.
“If you ask me the early Church leaders were marketing geniuses.”
Yeah, that’s why they were all thrown to the lions for 300 years… it was all a marketing ploy!
Those clever Papists.
I like your “hooked on Mary” line, though. Make a good t-shirt.
“I liked your ‘hooked on Mary’ line, though. Make a good t-shirt.”
Me, too. Maybe a certain artist (who shall remain nameless) can design one.
http://jesuspan.com/
speaking of marketing…
It sure is a shame they don’t have one for Mary, too, since she appears equally fond of showing up on toast, wood grain, rocks and a variety of other things.
I hope the world never runs out of Catholics. We need the comic relief.
Tim J,
True, I forgot they started out as participants in avant-garde theater peices and ended up in the marketing business. I can understand the shift. Martyrdom has its good points but that isn’t where the money is.
Mary C., he didn’t take your advice. To update an old saying: “Better not to post and be thought a fool than to post and remove all doubt.” (And he thinks Catholics provide comedy relief).
And he’ll be back, to let us know I got his goat. He can’t help it.
Anon: your preoccupation with money seems to be a classic case of someone projecting his own obsessions onto others. perhaps, after all, you are not an atheist but a worshipper of the great god of Mammon.
Nah, you wouldn’t find me calling the dollar almighty. In a former “life” I attended church. Actually, I tried out all the variety that Christianity has to offer. One thing I can say for certain; all the protestant sects and Catholics have an interest in the bottom line. Some even take credit cards and set up auto-withdrawals!
If anyone is worshipping at the alter of old Mammon it is good old “established religion”. Tax exempt, too! No wonder they say Jesus saves… LOL
Anon,
When we are all dead, we will know who has it right.
Meanwhile, if you worship God, how ’bout we pray for one another?
Hey, Atheist guy-
Why is it, you think, that you jumped around so much as a church goer? Just curious.
I’m glad to hear you aren’t interested in money. I attended lots of churches, too, and I found that most of them just managed to pay the bills. It’s always the way. A few people sacrifice so that everyone else can have some place to go at Christmas and Easter.
What’s it like believing everything is meaningless?
Anon,
You imply you think women deserve to be priests, but you also said that priests are really only in it for the money. So I guess you think women are corrupt as a rule. Otherwise, how could they be priests?
I just think that women are equally corrupt, so, why not? What the hell–as they say? Why not mix in some egalitarianism with the preposterousness of religion?
As for “just barely paying the bills” that’s hardly what I’ve seen.
Anon,
Why are you even post your thoughts on this Catholic weblog? What do you believe you will accomplish by attacking our faith? the results will be that you leave here hating Catholics and the Catholic Church more than you ever did, and we will continue to follow Our Lord. Enough!