Posted on 07/30/2011 10:13:06 AM PDT by NYer
The woman next to me loved the title: Pink Smoke Over the Vatican. I know, because she said, "Great title!" with a knowing laugh.
There were a lot of knowing laughs in the theater Saturday morning, when the one-hour independent documentary about women's ordination had its Cincinnati debut. Perhaps the biggest came when the narrator explained that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the modern day name for The Holy Office of the Inquisition—which, though true, does sound a bit over the top. But not as over the top as clandestine ordinations on ships by incognito bishops.
And that's what the film is about: Women who want to be priests, some of whom claim to have been ordained. Sympathetic bishops, they say, have helped them. The first "ordinations" of the infamous "Danube Seven" were done in Germany in 2002—on a boat, so that they were on no bishop's territory, and in secret, so the bishops involved would not be found out. Since then, nine "ordination" ceremonies have been held, most for "priests" but many for "deacons" and ten "bishops." Because no male bishops are now involved, assuming any really were to begin with, the ceremonies are no longer secret. They are also no longer held on boats, but take place in synagogues, non-Catholic churches, and hotels. The Association of Roman Catholic Womenpriests (RCWP) claims to have 100 women in training and plans to have several more "ordinations" in 2011.
Director Jules Hart, whose previous efforts for EyeGoddessFilms include a documentary about at-risk youth "creating a totem pole as a symbol of peace and healing," says she made the film because she was captivated by the stories of Catholic women longing for the priesthood. On Saturday, about 200 people, most of them women, crowded into the 220-seat theater to hear those stories. The manager told me that made it one of the most successful private screenings the theater has ever held.
Pink Smoke is on the independent film circuit and may be coming to a theater near you. If you go, what will you see? A lot of kindly white-haired ladies, both on screen and in person—and some angry women thrown in for balance. A lot of talk about feelings and justice, a lot of half-truths and wishful thinking, and a couple of jabs at men. But it's what you won't see that is most important.
Pink Smoke Over the Vatican begins with a lot of unsupported claims that women's ordination was once accepted and common in the Church, but that evidence of this was "all but eradicated" in a Dan Brown-type conspiracy of medieval men. For the record—in case any readers are wondering—even this author with a minor in medieval history can tell you that such a thing would be logistically impossible.
The film then goes on to profile several women RCWP claims to have ordained, including one "bishop," and their supporters. Prominent among the supporters is Fr. Roy Bourgeois, the excommunicated Maryknoll priest, who shakes his finger at the mean old Church and calls the priesthood a "boys club." He is given almost as much screen time as Patricia Fresen, a cheerful, grandmotherly South African woman who claims to have been the third woman ordained a bishop. She had to leave the Dominican order after (as the Church puts it) attempting ordination and refusing to recant. Her delighted and bemused account of her episcopal "ordination" was, for me, the highlight of a surreal film experience.
But not all of the women profiled were so engaging. One was so angry she practically set the screen on fire, and another barely managed to speak as she fought back tears of sorrow for her oppressed sisters. On the whole, "priest" or layperson, the people profiled talked about their feelings. They felt called to priesthood, they felt excluded from power, they felt overjoyed at the idea of women at the altar, they felt felt FELT.
They felt called to priesthood, they felt excluded from power, they felt overjoyed at the idea of women at the altar, they felt felt FELT.
- - - - -
Feelings over facts always leads to heresy.
Here is some industrial felt for their perusal.
Just because men and women fill different roles doesn’t mean that women are “less valued”.
It's like, in a Catholic ordination, the prostration of the Ordinandi face down on the floor while the Litany of the Saints is chanted. It's sure not an expression of "one guy's personal individuality, initiative, and genius" but the exact opposite: the submitting of himself as a beggar and a bound man.
I am an Evangelical and I have serious issues with women as ministers and priests. It isn’t biblical.
Women in other areas of ministry I have no problem with (I am female and work in counter cult ministries) but women should be constrained to axillary ministerial functions (like nuns in the Catholic church) rather than being head of congregations.
My inlaws attend a church with a woman ‘pastor’ and while I like her, and her sermons, when we attend with them, I think of it more as Sunday School rather than see her as a ‘pastor’. It would be unbiblical for me to submit myself to a woman pastor so I will not do it.
I agree 100% with you about not giving the other side ammunition: "the other side" meaning the Enemy of Souls, about whom we have been warned. He loves public controversies amongst Christians, who move from conflict to contempt and end up spitting and tearing at each other like demons.
Have a good Sunday, and thank you for a mutually thought-provoking discussion. I regard you as an ally and hope to be worthy to be so regarded by you.
Absolutely.
As somebody explained up thread, the cultural norm at the time was priestesses, although the Jews did not follow that custom.
Anyhow, Christ broke cultural norms all over the place, from healing the sick on the Sabbath and allowing his disciples to pull and eat grain walking through the fields on the Sabbath, to consorting with tax-collectors and the Syro-Phoenician woman and publicans and prostitutes, to calling the Pharisees 'whited sepulchres' and driving the money changers out of the Temple.
Christ had no hesitance defying the culture, and if he had wanted to call women to the priesthood, he would have. After all, his blessed mother and Mary Magdalene were right there and the obvious choices, had he intended such.
And think about this: the priest on the altar stands in the place of Christ - "alter Christus" - and offers the sacrifice for his bride, the Church. A female cannot be the spouse of the Church, Christ's bride. It's not that it's forbidden -- it's ontologically impossible.
Leaving aside all the thoughts on doctrine etc. I really do see pastoresses as one step on the road to gay married pastors etc. -- if I just look at things without a religious hat on, it seems that is the obvious path to me.
We disagree on that point and on several others that I do not consider central. We agree on the vast majority of questions and as far as I can tell on all the questions I consider central to Christ's work. That's a good place to leave this discussion.
Short answer: My mother used to say God gave men the priesthood to make up to them that they can’t be mothers.
Longer answer:
A minister preaches, but a priest is “another Christ”: The King, the priest who offers sacrifice for his people, the shepherd who cares for the flock, etc. It is a male “archetype” in pschology and ignoring the reality of gender differences results in distortion of the meaning of these things.
The call for women priests actually has to do with gender confusion in our modern world. The modern world thinks equality means being the same. So women have to become pseudo men to be able to do a man’s work.
The results of this tiny change of denying the deeper biological, sociological and psychological differences between men and women causes a “butterfly” effect, where mothers are disdained, childbearing is frowned upon, marriage is between anyone who wants to “marry” and has nothing to do with sacrifice or raising children, where women abort children who stand in the way of their careers and men desert their pregnant girlfriends because they won’t take responsibility for their offspring...and what is worse, there is no legal or even social disapproval of doing so.
One only has to see the rest of the agenda of those promoting “womanpriests” to see that it isn’t about a woman being a priest, but about changing the church to accept artificial birth control, divorce, unwed parenthood as normal, abortion, forced family limitations under the name of population control (which is what Hillary is pushing on us here in the Philippines), homosexual behavior as normal, premarital sex as normal etc....and eventually, as the population ages and has no one to care for them, they will go on to promote euthanasia for the old and “useless”...
My experience has never been with the women who claim to be priests in the Catholic Church, nor would I attend one of their services when visiting a Catholic church. My current minister is a strict believer that the Bible says what it means and means what it says, as was the other female minister for my church many years ago. I haven't seen an "agenda" from either one beyond preaching the Gospel honestly and adjusting our lives to fit scripture - with a clear rejection of adjusting the meaning of scripture to fit personal convenience. Both have strongly disapproved of divorce, with the exception of cases of abuse or adultery (a small stretch from Christ's position okaying divorce only for adultery, but I'm okay with that). Both have strongly disapproved of abortion and euthanasia. The first read scripture on both adultery and homosexuality in support of occasional sermons and interpreted them as I do - which is the only logical interpretation. The second hasn't had time to address that topic from the pulpit, but when I asked her about it her answer was precise, unambiguous, and based on scripture. The difference is perhaps that my church permits women to serve from the pulpit so we get mainstream women, while only a woman who rejects Church teachings would pretend to be a Catholic priest.
Yet the really important and really interesting people in Catholicism are not the priests, nor the popes, but the saints.
To use a technical Catholic term: BINGO !
I would like to hear someone tell Mother Angelica, back in her heyday before the stroke laid her low, how "powerless" she was and how the Church wasn't "respecting her dignity".
The fireworks would have been most impressive.
:o)
What a strange statement...Everything in scripture is central to scripture...So what, you pick what you like and everything else is negotiable???
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
The one thing that's clear is that women are more susceptible to Satanic deception than men...
Men pastors only...
Matthew 1:8-10 Asa begot Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat begot Joram, and Joram begot Uzziah. Uzziah begot Jotham, Jotham begot Ahaz, and Ahaz begot Hezekiah. Hezekiah begot Manasseh, Manasseh begot Amon, and Amon begot Josiah.
or Mark 14:51-52 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
I see the significance in context, and I chose these sections because I have used both passages in detailed discussions - they do carry some meaning - but I see at best minimal relevance to our lives today. I believe that it's possible to be both part of the Bible and not central to God's Word. You appear to disagree. Whichever one of us is right, if either of us, I'm grateful that our decisions are for both of us guided by better hands than our own.
Ministers are preachers, not priests. There are women preachers/prophets in the old testament and new testament, but the apostles are men, and the old testament priests are men.
The Catholic church has many women preachers who are strict Christians (Mother Angelica comes to mind).
the “begat” part is very important here in Asia, where people trace their linage for generations. It shows the Hebrews and Jesus were not isolated individuals but part of a family whose lineage goes back generations.
The “naked man” in Mark is presumed to be Mark. This gospel was traditionally supposed to be written based on the teachings of Peter, but this passage is a way to hint that the writer Mark (who was a teenager/kid at the time) also was present, that he witnessed some of these things but that he, like the other apostles, also fled when Jesus was arrested.
But I agree that neither is central to Christ’s message. My “favorite” is the aside that Jacob hurt his sciatic nerve wrestling with the angel and so the Hebrews don’t eat that part of the animal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.