I suppose I’m being churlish. But in the online petition at Women’s Ordination Conference supporting Fr. Roy Bourgeois (facing possible dismissal from Maryknoll and removal from priesthood), isn’t this sentence missing some punctuation?
Our Catholic tradition teaches that sexism is a sin and excluding women from the priesthood is sinful.
I’m not sure that our Catholic tradition teaches everything in that sentence…
awr
Leave it to a professor to point out grammatical errors! The English faculty would be proud.
The sentence is ambiguous as written. Does the writer intend Our Catholic tradition teaches that sexism is a sin, and excluding women from the priesthood is sinful? Or does the writer intend Our Catholic tradition teaches that sexism is a sin and that excluding women from the priesthood is sinful? The first states a relevant fact together with an opinion based on the fact, and the second states two claims to fact, one of which is false. If the author intends the first, it is mispunctuated; if the second, it is correctly punctuated. Let’s keep it ambiguous for now, lest someone posting below call me a philosophress, liguistress, grammarianess,….
Fr. Ruff, good humor and good point on grammar. But, I’d be happy to hear your reasoning why Fr. Bourgeois is wrong in his argument.
Reminds me of: “Let’s eat Grandma!” versus “Let’s eat, Grandma!”
To be fair, that sentence was translated directly from a Latin source document which did not have the punctuation either.
One day the women’s ordination movement will be out of the hands of these ridiculous people.
I suppose I’m being churlish… but would that be Fr. Roy Bourgeois facing possible *dismissal* from Maryknoll and removal from priesthood? 🙂
LOL! Typo corrected.Thanks.
awr
As far as I can tell, the only punctuation that needs fixing is an exclamation point instead of the period. Maybe we don’t need a “Tahrir Square” at the Vatican, but a Winter Palace or a Tet Offensive. God, send us more progressive priests like Roy Bourgeois and Anthony Ruff! There’s still time for an October Revolution before the evils of November.
It all depends on the definition of Catholic tradition. Is it Canon Law or the Greatest Commandment?
Punctuate this passage:
“Woman without her man is nothing”
One answer: woman, without her man, is nothing
Another: woman, without her, man is nothing
Just move a comma and change the meaning entirely.
A third: woman without, her man is nothing
I (though there is much I have not heard of) do not believe that there ever lived a woman who had not a father, nor a woman who co-conceived a child without the agency of a man. This exaltation of womanhood over manhood, of feminity over masculinity, of motherhood over fatherhood, of the feminisation of men so that women can become ever more masculine is preposterous, bald, and impudent sexism. We all have the same human hearts, and neither sex is free from the sins great and small, triffling and heinous, prideful, envious, self-seeking and treacherous, which are the inheritance of fallen mankind. (I suppose it would be indecent (certainly unfashionable) to refer to fallen womankind.) And, how selective are those who neuter our language: the episcopalians call priestesses priests, actresses call themselves actors, etc, etc., but some selective differences remain if they convey sufficent uniqueness and status – thus we don’t yet call princesses princes, or queens kings, and the last I heard it was acceptable to refer to battleships as’ her’ and ‘she’ – they are, after all, gigantic symbols of tremendous power appropriate to many women’s self-concept ofunimpeachable rectitude – what sweet (or bitter) irony that one of men’s most potent toys should still be called a ‘she’ – and as a ‘she’ ironically being the protector of the ‘he’.Well, in that case, the girls get mileage of out female battleships.
Also, it doesn’t seem that we can dispassiontely observe that priestess are totally foreign to Jewish and Christians tradition and holy writ. Prophetesses, yes, Priestesses, no. They were/are common in numerous pagan religious in which they fulfilled the roles of oracles (mad) soothsayers and such. No priestesses, (or ‘female priests’ as some are pleased to hear them calle) played any roles in theJudeo-Cbristian drama.
Women Episcopalian priests are priests, not priestesses, and every time I read the contempt behind the use of the word priestess, I feel kind of sick.
Is there contempt in “actress” and “waitress” being used instead of “actor” and “waiter”?
I’m not denying that some people who use the word “priestess” do so contemptuously, but if males are actors and females are actresses, and thus with waiter and waitresses, what’s there to complain about priest and priestess?
Actress and waitress can be used contemptuously. Ask some of them.
The insistence on “priestess” when “priest” has lost its gender-specific limitation in current usage may be reasonable taken by a reader as a red flag of contemptuous usage, even if that is not the actual intent.
There are, of course, places where our friends could go to become, in other ecclesial bodies, the ‘priests’ that they cannot be in the Catholic Church, whose Lord carefully chose those upon whom he did and did not confer ordination. And, lest we trot out the shibboleth about how the God-Man was somehow limited by the culture in which he lived, we sanely note that holy writ teaches us that he perfectly fulfilled his Father’s will and left out nothing in that fulillment. He was, in fact, nailed to a cross for doing and saying things that were not done in his culture. No – it would seem that the Holy Spirit has spoken through the Church and successive Holy Fathers – as if our Lord’s example were not enough. But, alas! He hasn’t spoken what our friends wish to hear. Methinks that only when the Church sings the song they wish to hear will the cry go up – ‘Deo Gratias! The Holy Spirit has spoken at last!’ And, until they hear what they wait impiously to hear, are we supposed to believe he is on vacation?
A modicum of historical scholarship would greatly enhance your verbose, pious, anachronistic and chauvinistic diatribe.
‘The conferring of ordination’ as you name it, in the early centuries is not even a remotely accurate expression, to reflect the practices of the time.
In the first two centuries, what would become the liturgy of the word, took place in synagogues, until those Jews who regarded Jesus as messiah were expelled from them. The berakah or eucharist blessing took place at the end of an ordinary meal in domestic settings. See 1 Cor. Those who presided at the eucharist in the early centuries were those people whose houses were sufficiently large to accommodate the numbers in question. In some cases, these were women.
As I said in relation to an earlier posting of yours, concerning theological basics, some fundamental liturgical catechesis should be mandatory for christians from other churches who wish to enter into full communion with the RCC.
In the first two centuries, what would become the liturgy of the word, took place in synagogues, until those Jews who regarded Jesus as messiah were expelled from them.
1. I think most scholars would agree that the expulsion from the synagogue was pretty much universal by the end of the first century.
2. At least since Gregory Dix the idea that the liturgy of the Word is descended from the synagogue liturgy has be almost universally accepted, but recently Paul Bradshaw has argued, fairly cogently in my opinion, that the Sabbath Liturgy of the synagogue dates only from the third century and that the origins of the Christian liturgy of the word is in fact within the context of the Eucharistic meal itself (see Bradshaw, Eucharistic Origins, 69-75).
The berakah or eucharist blessing took place at the end of an ordinary meal in domestic settings. See 1 Cor.
First Corinthians is hardly evidence that the Eucharist took place at the end of an “ordinary meal.” If anything, it is evidence that the entire meal was sacramental and sacrificial, since it is precisely the Corinthians treating it as an “ordinary meal” that Paul chides them for.
Those who presided at the eucharist in the early centuries were those people whose houses were sufficiently large to accommodate the numbers in question. In some cases, these were women.
What is the evidence that the homeowners presided at the Eucharist? The Didache (ch. 15), which may be as early as the first century, seems to indicate that Churches were lead by bishops and deacons, though wandering prophets/apostles also had a role (and could preside at the Eucharist — see the end of ch. 10). What there is precious little indication of is leadership by householders.
So please be careful before condescending to others about their lack of catechesis. There seems to be a lot of that going on in the comboxes here lately.
Though, for the record, I’ll add that I agree that “priestess” is insulting in this context.
The expostulations from this source (M. J. Osborn) are so pompous and preposterous that I begin to think that they must be parodies.
F.B.
“What there is precious little indication of is leadership by householders.”
It’s a common crosscultural phenomenon that the host presides. Of course, exceptional arrangements would also most likely have applied. But by way of exception, which per se proves the rule.
The most recent comments bear eloquent testimony to the obnoxious nature of the offending posting. Humour is probably the most appropriate response.
How can you hear the contempt behind that word, Miss Watson, since it was not there. A priest is a man. A priestess is a woman. There is no necessary value judgement or contmpt in these usages. You have put it there yourself. Actor-actress, aviator-aviatrix, prince-princess, duke duchess, father-mother —- if you see contempt it comes from within you for you know instinctively that priestess-Catholic Church is a ludicrous mis-match. In other contexts priestesses are highly though of. There is no contempt – only sadness that the Catholic priesthood is so sadly misunderstood and has become yet another battleground for over-weaning and presumptuous pride, envy, and status.
The contempt is evident in the use of a term the person herself would not use and has not adopted.
Good manners would indicate a commentator use the given term, and not attempt a translation where none is called for.
If you are unconvinced, I suggest a series of discussions with your local doctress, nursette, realtrix, accountress, Supreme Court Justess, law officerette, etc.. See what they say. Then watch, please, what you say.
Well it’s more complicated than that. After all, good manners wouldn’t require you to address me as “Senator” if that’s what I decided I was. You also have input into whether or not I am properly addressed as “Senator,” because you are the one doing the addressing. Language (like liturgy) is a community game (in the philosophical sense), not a private pursuit.
Also, we have commonly sought from outside to change the language that other people use to describe themselves. My mother taught me to say “firefighter” instead of “fireman” when lots of “firefighters” were still calling themselves “firemen”.
This is not to say that I advocate the use of the term “priestess” for female Episcopal priests. It’s generally not useful to give gratuitous offense. Ordinarly, from a Roman Catholic perspective, a male Episcopal priest is no more a priest than a female Episcopal priest is, so a special deprecatory term seems unneccesary.
It’s not clear to me what makes M. Jackson Osborn’s earlier comment “chauvanstic” as Gerard Flynn describes it. Is it something more than its adherence to Roman Catholic teaching that the Church may not ordain women as priests? Or is this another area where he will not tell us what he thinks, but that the sensus fidelium feels other than the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Thanks for responding, Samuel. Yes, it’s very complicated.
To expound on your example, if you were my neighbor and among our friends, you had a certain interest in politics, or a personal style of being a “senator,” then perhaps I might indeed call you that as a term of affection shared by a a community.
As for the question of orders in the Episcopal Church, or in parallel, a remarried Catholic, I can recognize the legal, the committed, and the small-s sacrament quality of that without endangering my salvation or giving scandal.
My late Episcopalian brother spoke of Mass, priests, sacraments in such a way I understood they were for him and his tradition, encounters with Christ that were substantial, worthy of respect, and clearly not Roman Catholic.
It may be a mark of immaturity that a person insists on reminding all listeners and readers of the nature of religion, even when it veers off topic.
Priestesses are associated with pagan religions. Suggesting that Christian women with discerned and accepted leadership positions in a Christian communion are tainted by paganism, even in jest, is the comment of a boor. Then you add the likely dimension of feminism, and thus the commenter becomes a provocateur.
As a father, it wouldn’t be unlike a person coming into my home, making sexual comments in front of my daughter and wife, then suggesting that adoption is a farce. It would take a supreme act of will to prevent me from tossing such an oaf out on his butt.
“Ordinarly, from a Roman Catholic perspective, a male Episcopal priest is no more a priest than a female Episcopal priest is, so a special deprecatory term seems unneccesary.” S.J.H.
Wrong again! And how extraordinarily gratuitously insulting, when dressed up in pseudo-urbane and barely concealed disdain! You appear to eschew the use of a ‘special’ deprecatory term, while promoting the epitome of deprecation.
From a Roman Catholic perspective, male or female Episcopal priests may not be Roman Catholic priests. They are not. Nor would they wish to be. But to say that they are not priests is something else altogether.
So, while, according to you, it may be more complicated than that, in fact it is much simpler.
Mr. Osborn, does it not strike you that your comments really don’t do anything to advance your argument, but rather place you in a precarious position where you look like a jerk by being triumphalist. Your image of priesthood greatly contributes not only to the problem of women being degraded, but also lay people. And while some of the gender terminology you talk about it is true, I think you completely miss the point of Fr. Anthony’s post. His post is a joke on a lack of grammar and how that grammar leads to unclear meaning of words. What you’re arguing about is semantics, e.g. the difference between an actor and actress. If you really want inclusivity it really shouldn’t matter what word you use, though to be fair I will admit the default becomes the masculine a lot of times and that presents a potential issue of elitism.
And while the words you say may not seem to you like contempt, the tone with which you’re making your argument is one of aggression, which people are catching on. The other problem with your argument is that enforcing the male dominant stereotype actually doesn’t fix the real problem you see of men being discriminated against. Male discrimination happens because of gender determinism and is a philosophy originally thought up by feminist philosophers to show why women are better than men because they are more caring, etc. But to speak toward male exclusion and creating distance really doesn’t help your argument. It’d be much better if you made a point about advancing the dignity of persons and listening to the other, regardless of gender. This would enable you to make an argument about why the separate names are important as you’re respecting something about the particular role you are describing. But alas, you didn’t make this argument. 🙁
Anyway, this story is interesting because there does need to be a check of whether we really love God and neighbor in our structures. I’m really beginning to wonder…
In English “priestess” is insulting for Christian clergy because only “priest” has been used for Christian clergy in English. Priestess has only been applied to non Christian religions.
Historically, presbytera has been used as well as presbyter. Some argue this is the feminine form for a Christian office holder; others hold that it is the designation of the wife of a presbyter.
However even when there has been an historic distinction, e.g. deacon and deaconess, the Orthodox Theologian and psychologist Kyriaki Karidoyanes Fitzgerald in Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church: Called to Holiness and Ministry has argued on theological grounds that it best to use the term deacon for both.
On a humorous note, perhaps instead of priest and priestess, Father and Mother, etc. we should refer to these people as “Old Man” and “Old Woman,
e.g .”Good morning Old Man.”
or “as Old Man McDonald said in his comment”
“Old Man” and “Old Woman” picks up on that notion of being married to the community that is being promoted by traditionalists while having a kind of folksy, egalitarian, and warm fuzzy appeal that should delight liberals.
It also might discourage clericalism.
How about “Uncle” and “Auntie”?
Aunts are among my favorite people.
Clergy are barely acquaintances; they are certainly not friends and family.
Aunts Aren’t Gentlemen: PG Wodehouse
On behalf of nearly 7 billion human beings, “Who cares?”
Sorry if I overreacted. I was thinking of some of the posts at the Insight Scoop where women priests are often refered to as “priestettes”. While there are examples like waiters and waitresses, there are many more like doctor, lawyer, professor, pilot, marine, engineer, philosopher, in which it would be considered strange to add the “ess” to the end of the term to designate a woman. That’s because, I think, the men and women in those professions have the same qualifications and do the same job – there’s no meaningful reason to distinguish between men and women. Despite the example of waitress, when someone says priestess instead of priest, they seem to be saying that women priests are not real priests (not to mention the pagan connotations). We could debate all day the worthiness of the Catholic Church’s belief that Jesus didn’t want women to be priests, but the Episcopal Church does allow women priests, so to refer to them as pristesses seems insulting.
M J Osborn, may I suggest that you acquire and read Professor Gary Macy’s magisterial The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination, subtitled “Female Clergy in the Medieval West”, published by Oxford University Press (who are not noted for publishing anything in the nature of a rant but instead insist on proper scholarship).
Note that this is not about the Episcopal Church but about the Catholic Church in the first 1000 or so years of its existence. It is a fascinating read.
You may not agree with Professor Macy’s conclusions, but you will show respect for his research and scholarship, I hope.
The English language is subjectivist in terms of accepted usage in this regard.
Oh, and Popes themselves refer to prelates of the Anglican Church by their prelatial titles. So, if you want to hurl “not very Catholic” and “subjectivist” as a pejorative term on this item, start with Rome….
We are bound to give them serious weight when forming our consciences. If the teachings are deficient or biased, we should make our ultimate decisions with that in mind. No insistence on jurisdictional authority can displace accuracy or the authority which comes from expertise. Unlike in the days of Galileo, the RCC has given up the idea that ecclesial statements can replace facts or knowledge and produced such enlightened documents as Divinu Afflante Spiritu. Thomas Aquinas already taught of two magisteria, that of the hierarchy and that of the theologian and that the hierarchy cannot usurp the role of the theologians. Many hierarchical teachings have been found to be erroneous or inadequate and allowed to be superseded in practice, even though they remain in place.
I suspect he is referring to the study on the diaconate, which discussed the ordination of women to that position without a simple recourse to JP2’s statement on ordaining priests. But his words do not really reflect the position of that document either.
Greek Orthodox metropolitan Kallistos Ware is on record as saying, “If we are going to ordain only men, we must say why. So far the reasons we have given are not sufficient. This will take much more deep and careful study.”
He is not “advocating” ordaining women, just stating that the reasons for not doing so are weak, in his opinion. Although he conlcuded is comments by saying, “It is better if we say, ‘we dont know.'”
If there were communion someday between Rome and Orthodoxy, would such a man be forbidden to say this?
(Interview posted on the NorthAmerican Greek Orthodox website. Last I looked it is still htere and has been for a number of years.)
Mark Miller
A posting to this thread seems to have disappeared from just before my response to it at 10:02 pm yesterday.
by
Tags:
Please leave a reply.