“I have great faith in the Holy Spirit to move papal conclaves, but I would concede that I may be running ahead of the Spirit on this one.”

And thus E.J. Dionne Jr. is off and running.

Initially I was dumbfounded because I didn’t think anyone would actually seriously propose what I tossed off as a joke in my “first reactions” post last Monday.

But propose it he did. Thus this post right here, which I started nearly as soon as his hit the intertubalwebs, took a lot longer to write than I had hoped because I just couldn’t decide if I should go right to derision or treat it seriously, what parts I should respond to (there’s a whole lotta dumb in there), and how far “into the weeds” to go in my responses.

One last “meta” note before diving in: this post of mine is written firmly understanding that a female pope is as possible as a circle with corners, even if I occasionally respond for argument’s sake as though it were possible.

What Dionne runs through is a laundry list of bad arguments for women’s ordination: The leadership roles women have in Church missionary work and religious communities and their indispensable contributions to same. The advancement of women in society. Comments by recent popes on the dignity and increasingly important role of women in society. The Catholic devotion to the Blessed Mother. The sex scandals! The out-of-touch, stodgy, siloed hierarchy that can’t possibly understand what’s really going on in the world. Yadda, yadda yadda.

Herein I share some (but not all) of the amazingly obtuse statements with as quick a response as I can muster.

Some will object to the idea of a female pope on the grounds that it is legally impossible. Yes, it would require a real openness to change. But the rules for electing a pope are much more flexible than many realize. As the Catholic News Service has noted: “In theory, any baptized male Catholic can be elected pope, but current church law says he must become a bishop before taking office; since the 15th century, the electors always have chosen a fellow cardinal.” Under canon law, CNS reports, if a non-bishop or a layman is selected, he must receive episcopal consecration from the dean of the College of Cardinals before ascending to the papacy.

See? Easy-peesy-lemon-squeezy. All we have to do is ignore the words “male” and “he” in those rules and begin allowing women to be priests and bishops, and voila! we’ve got ourselves a female pope. All it requires is “a real openness to change.”

There’s a term for people who are in many ways practically Catholic but are totes okay with women priests and bishops (and contraception, gay marriage, abortion…): Anglican. Why Dionne and folks like him don’t cross the Stour is beyond me.* Be open to change, E.J.: admit you’ve left the Church in all ways but self-identification and it will all become so much more clear for everyone.

If the college were inspired to elect a woman, it could arrange for her consecration and leave the broader question of whether women should become priests — a change that I both hope and expect will happen someday — open for debate during her pontificate.

This is just surprisingly bad logic. I’m surprised neither he nor his editor didn’t catch how idiotic this is before it went to press. “Arrange for her consecration” without addressing the question of whether women can be priests? To put it in terms Dionne would likely understand, that’s like being awarded a Pulitzer for an article that has not yet been written.

[H]anding leadership to a woman — and in particular, to a nun — would vastly strengthen Catholicism, help the church solve some of its immediate problems and inspire many who have left the church to look at it with new eyes.

Per the snippet I posted just previously, the maelstroms of controversy this would cause regarding core doctrinal questions would absolutely destroy the Church, not strengthen, nor solve any problems. Lots of people *would* look at the Church (we capitalize “Church” when referring to the global institution founded by Christ on Peter and the Apostles, E.J.) with new eyes, but they’d be laughing their tookuses off, not considering entering the Church. My evidence? The amazing disappearing Anglican communion.

He spends a few paragraphs extolling the great work millions of Catholics around the world do for the poor and downtrodden, including a nun who took Nick Kristof of the New York Times on a bone-jarring jeep ride through the bush in Swaziland while doing her missionary work. Such recognition is right and proper, but it is not an argument for making any of those religious—male or female—pope. And a fair number of women religious doing that work whom I know personally or by reputation would recoil at the notion of a woman being ordained a priest, let alone being elected pope.

Here is where Dionne makes the false move in this regard:

There are certainly bishops and cardinals who have done this sort of godly work and many more who have supported it. But those who have devoted their lives to climbing the church’s career ladder tend not to be like that nun in the jeep in Swaziland. What a message the cardinals would send about the church’s priorities if they made such a woman pope.

First, why “such a woman”? Why not “such a man”? All Catholic men are eligible, technically, so he could simply advocate for some religious brother who has proven his social justice bona fides. But that wouldn’t make for nearly as sexy a column so he goes for the impossible angle that has shock value.

Second, he clearly does not understand Church of today. While history tells us that bishoprics, including the papacy, have in the past been treated like crowns and peerages, that was during an era when being a bishop was a desirable position for secular reasons—political power, governmental authority, money, respect, and all the trappings that come along with them (note a word I did not use: “leadership.” More on that in a moment). I have no illusions that jockeying for position doesn’t happen in the Church today, but there is no evidence that one climbs the episcopal “career” ladder as one climbs the ladder in a bureaucracy in DC.

In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. Benedict nearly refused the papacy at the 2005 conclave. John Paul II was loathe to leave Poland. Being named a bishop at all is to be singled out for one of the most difficult and unforgiving “careers” out there, let alone being elected pope.

Third, so many of today’s most prominent bishops have had real-world experience as champions of social justice, parish priests, and activists in various capacities, even while bishop. He even acknowledges this. Why does he not advocate for one of them to be elected pope?

Then there’s this grade-school-level theological gem:

A sister as pope could also resolve what might seem a contradiction in Catholic theology. More than Protestants, Catholics are profoundly devoted to the Virgin Mary — and few were as devoted as the late Pope John Paul II, who declared that Mary “sustains the spiritual life of us all, and encourages us, even in suffering, to have faith and hope.” A church for which the Blessed Mother plays such an important role should certainly be comfortable with female leadership.

And yet, that same John Paul II who had such a tender devotion to the Blessed Mother, and who attributed his surviving the assassination attempt to the Blessed Mother, gave perhaps the strongest message ever that women’s ordination is not a possibility.

Now, I generally try to avoid speaking or writing on topics when I clearly know next to nothing on them. It seems a good way to avoid appearing ignorant, arrogant, and unwise. It also theoretically lends more credence to anything I *do* write, because it indicates I believe I have something worth writing that is based in reality. E.J. Dionne clearly has no such compunction.

Great female leaders of the Church like Mother Teresa, Teresa of Avila, Elizabeth Ann Seton, even Catherine of Siena who wielded considerable influence over bishops and popes, would have been repulsed by the notion that women should be ordained, let alone be up for the papacy. (Incidentally, that’s one of the problems with these gals’ lines of argumentation also.)

They knew what Dionne and so many others like him don’t seem to realize: leadership and influence are not matters of position, and the hierarchy is not there primarily to lord over and control any of us. Leadership comes from prudence, compassion, strength of will, the ability to make good decisions, and the ability to communicate a vision clearly. People follow those who demonstrate these things, thus making those people “leaders.” Leaders frequently end up in positions of authority, but not always. People in positions of authority can be leaders, but not always.

The hierarchy of the Church is there to be our spiritual fathers, in a visible line of succession from the Apostles, bringing new spiritual life into the world through the sacraments and safeguarding the treasures of the Church’s Tradition. These are masculine, not feminine, roles. This does not mean women are inferior. Women cannot be fathers, and it is not their role to be the primary protector.

Likewise, men cannot be mothers—talk about a position that naturally means leadership!—and are not primarily nurturers.

But either can be leaders from the positions they have. Dionne, in fact, acknowledges this by noting the great leadership shown by so many women like Mother Teresa in their missionary activities. No man did that—a woman did. And thank God she did!

I hardly expect the cardinals to follow my advice on this.

Well that’s good.

But I hope that they at least consider electing the kind of man who has the characteristics of my ideal female pontiff.

That they can do, but I’ll bet they’ll have a little more on their mind than your list.

The church needs a leader who has worked closely with the poor and the outcast,…

Again: The Church already has tons of leaders who do this, male and female. The pope does not *need* to be one of them, but happily there are a fair number of cardinals involved who have done so.

…who understands that battling over doctrine is less important for the church’s future than modeling Christian behavior…

Equally important, actually, because getting the doctrine right leads to proper teaching of the faithful, which, theoretically, if the people are docile, spurs proper behavior.

…— and who sees that the proper Christian attitude toward the modern world is not fear but hope.

!!!!!!???!?!!!????!!!??????

….

…sorry, momentarily speechless. I don’t think E.J. Dionne pays any attention to the Church nowadays At. All.

A major part of the Church’s message to the world yesterday, today, everyday, is precisely HOPE. Spe Salvi, “Saved in hope,” was Pope Benedict’s second encyclical. It is a marvelous meditation on the virtue of hope and the effect it has on our lives. It is not long nor difficult reading—Benedict, unlike John Paul II, is an incredibly clear writer. If you have not read it, I encourage you (especially you, E.J.) to read at least the first half.

Further, what on earth does he thinks motivates all of the nuns and brothers who go out into the bush? What motivates the cardinals sitting in palaces in Rome to work the thankless jobs pouring over doctrinal statements and theological wrangling? What inspires men to want to be priests and brothers, women sisters and nuns, men and women fathers and mothers? Hope does: hope in the goodness of God and His promise of a glorious future in His love.

Further still, what were the first words of John Paul II to the world when he was elected in 1978? “Do not fear!” He said it repeatedly as pope. Benedict has globe-trotted well into his eighties without fear, even going to Turkey against many people’s wishes, despite concerns for his safety. Bishops stick with their flocks in war-torn regions, in the oppressive Chinese state, in darkening places like Venezuela, exhorting them not to fear, but to keep their eyes focused on Christ.

Dionne finishes up with a story about his daughter who has become disenchanted with the Church. With a father who has such a distorted view of the Church as E.J. Dionne Jr., it’s a wonder she can even spell “Catholic.”

Last summer my 18-year-old daughter, Julia, worked at a Catholic-supported program for the homeless in Silver Spring. Like many women her age, Julia has a long list of problems with the church, but she loved the program and deeply admired everyone who worked there.

She came home one night and said: “Why doesn’t the church talk more about this work and less about the stuff it usually talks about?”

This is just an amazing statement. E.J. Dionne Jr., who writes for the Washington Post, who could write about the good things people in the Church (including bishops, no?) do on a regular basis and get the word out, laments that THE CHURCH doesn’t talk about these things enough.

The mind reels.

To return to the first Dionne quote I included, “I have great faith in the Holy Spirit to move papal conclaves, but I would concede that I may be running ahead of the Spirit on this one,” the problem with running out ahead of the Holy Spirit is that it means you’ve left the Holy Spirit behind. When you separate yourself from the Holy Spirit (because you know how things ought to be) rather than waiting on His promptings and guidance you find yourself in a world of hurt. When you do that you are remaking God in your own image and likeness rather than letting Him bring you back to His. You lose sight of what is really, truly important, because you have decided for yourself what is important.

The really sad thing is Dionne is not alone. That fact gives good catechists job security.

The really happy thing is that the Holy Spirit is still working at His own pace, and in the conclave the cardinal electors are unable to run ahead of the Spirit at all.

——

*No, it really isn’t: there isn’t much compelling about an Anglican displaying alarming ignorance about the Church but proceeding to lecture her cardinals on matters of doctrine, but a “Catholic” doing so? Enlightened!

Pope Benedict is resigning. Not the end of the world, nor the end of the Church.

If you find yourself saddened by this news remember: the Church is the bride of Jesus Christ, not the product of human enterprise. The Pope is Christ’s vicar, not successor. The pope is a caretaker and steward, not lord. Continue to love the Church and not any one man. Trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit—that same Holy Spirit who gave us Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger. And especially pray for the cardinal-electors who just started burning up the red phone lines. They are who the Holy Spirit shall work through, pray that they are sensitive to the authentic promptings of the Spirit.

“All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.”

If, on the other hand, you find yourself happy with this news because you think “finally, we’ll get a pope who will allow contraception, women priests and [all manner of silliness] to prevail,” prepare yourself for continued frustration. The Church is the creation of God, not to be remade in our own image and likeness. She does not approve these things because they are un-approvable.

The Church is who she is because of Jesus Christ and not because of any individual man. All we weak human persons can contribute is more difficulty through our sinfulness—but even when we screw up, God is capable of bringing great good out of it.

We will hear all manner of silliness and bad advice from many corners about what sort of man (heh… or woman…) the Church ought to elect to show that she is still “relevant.” An actively and activist homosexual man. A non-Catholic. A man who isn’t so hung up on this or that doctrine.

Meh.

That’s like impetuous teens telling their stodgy conservative parents to “get with the times and live a little” in licentious, irresponsible, indulge-your-appetites behavior … except it falls short of the relationship between the Church and the world by orders of magnitude.

Those who would try to remake the Church do not understand her. Pope Benedict’s resignation, though an epochal event in world history, will not rock the Church, but merely confirms the primacy and solidity of the Church over the ever-changing times.

I mean seriously: that thing is just inappropriate. She must not know that vestments are supposed to match, not coordinate.

Apart from that, this video is made of awesome.*

* by “awesome” I clearly mean, “rarely do people volunteer such a testimony for why they ought not be taken seriously.”

My final semester in seminary began with a 5-day silent retreat with Archbishop Dolan, then of Milwaukee, as retreat-master. I had the privilege of a few 15- minute one-on-one sessions with him. I’ve met few people as genuine and magnetic.

The main thrust of the interview was Dolan’s gift of the gab, his magnetic personality, openness, and, of course, his unwavering “conservatism.” The topics were typical: sex abuse scandal, women’s ordination, abortion and contraception, priestly celibacy, and how the Church in America reverses the trend of Catholics no longer simply calling themselves “bad Catholics,” but actually declaring that they are no longer part of the Church.

All in all a great piece but it had some real head-shaker moments. I love lines like this one from old-guard liberal Morley Safer:

But if you think that Dolan is going to push for changes in those doctrines and beliefs, think again: despite the jolly, open demeanor, he’s about as conservative as they come.

(That’s supposed to be a drawback to liking him.)

Safer pressed on, as though the “liberal” positions were obviously the right ones, and the only ones someone with Dolan’s charisma ought to tend toward.

No question that you’re conciliatory, that you like to dialogue, but underneath that you’re an old-fashioned conservative; I mean, in the sense of a right-wing conservative.

Dolan hits this one out of the park.

I would bristle at being termed “right-wing,” but if somebody means enthusiastically committed and grateful for the timeless heritage of the Church, and feeling that my best service is when I try to preserve that and pass that on in its fullness and beauty and radiance, I’m a conservative, no doubt.

The exchange shows that folks like Morley Safer and the liberals who still largely run most of the major media outlets still don’t understand the liberating power of truth, humility, and especially the comfort in knowing the timelessness of Catholic truth.

Beyond that, however, is the assumption that in the Church, there is a “right-wing” position, which presently holds sway, and a “left-wing” position that is equally valid and may eventually win out. As though eventually in conclave or synod or council, the bishops will vote to allow women’s ordination, gay marriage, or any other liberal cause celebre. Dissenters on core doctrinal matters will always be dissenters.

This next video is from the “60 Minutes Overtime” Website, so while it has some great tidbits from the interview, it’s more of a story about the story, with another reporter reporting on Morley’s report and interviewing him about his interview with Dolan.

(Click “Continue Reading” not “Read Entire Post”)

More in-depth, and very accessible, answers to doctrinal questions come through on this one, but the “meta-discussion,” in which another reporter interviews Safer is also interesting.

Says Safer about Dolan: “He is a genuinely jovial, life-embracing, people loving man. There’s no question of that.”

The reporter does pointedly refer to the “right to gay marriage.” Interesting Orwellian re-cast of the language there, no?

But Dolan’s defense of the definition of marriage and the danger of tampering with the definition is instructive. Safer offered that allowing gay marriage wouldn’t attack heterosexual marriage, and wouldn’t alter the definition that much. Dolan came back with, “Where would, then, the tampering stop? I love my mom. But I don’t have the right to to marry her. Okay? So there are certain rights and attractions in life that are very beautiful, and very noble, but don’t entitle you to marriage.”

The rest went to women’s ordination, priestly celibacy, the Church being ever young while operating in every age.

The end was about his “salesmanship.” I appreciate what they mean by “salesmanship,” but it seems like such a tawdry term to use for evangelization.

The interview was what I expected from Dolan, and from Safer. Old-guard liberals expect those who adhere to Church teachings to be aloof, temperamental, irritated, and unapproachable, annoyed that someone would challenge their authority.

Dolan is just about the opposite of those things. Dolan, and a number of the other new-guard American bishops, are accessible, articulate, eager teachers, who recognize the great liberty that comes with preaching Christ, and him crucified, in and through the teachings of the Church, with a smile. They recognize that Christ is the worker of the work, they are the vessel. They recognize that the message is all important, not their personal advancement. They recognize that if they do their level best to cling to Christ, He will accomplish great things through them. And these realizations bring great liberty and joy.

In spite of his central role in setting right what has been damaged by the sex abuse crisis, and in spite of having the responsibility of the Archdiocese of New York and the presidency of the USCCB, he remains one of the most light-spirited, gregarious, accessible, inspiring people you will ever meet.

Chesterton said, “Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly.” Dolan has been described as “cherubic,” which referred more to his build and red cheeks, but…

Are those vessels glass and clay?! Good thing it's just bread and wine and not really Jesus.

But with the example of Abby Johnson still fresh and current, I was pleased to see another example pop up on Zenit: Norma Jean Coon.

In 2007, Coon attempted ordination to the diaconate at the hands of a German “bishop” of the international organization known as Roman Catholic Women Priests.

Earlier this month she officially repudiated all association with that organization, and just yesterday posted her full message of renunciation of Orders, public confession, and repentance for the scandal caused.

She says, in part:

I withdrew from the program within two weeks of the ceremony because I realized that I had made a mistake in studying for the priesthood. I confess to the truth of Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. I confess the authority of the Holy Father on these issues of ordination and recognize that Christ founded the ordination only for men.

Formally, I relinquish all connection to the program of Roman Catholic Women Priests and I disclaim the alleged ordination publicly with apologies to those whose lives I have offended or scandalized by my actions. I ask God’s blessings upon each of these folks and their families.

The specific mention of her recognition of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is significant because it is perhaps one of the most misunderstood papal writings of recent memory (though far outpaced by Humanae Vitae). In OS Pope John Paul II discussed the nature of the priesthood, noted that some thought the male-only priesthood was a matter of discipline rather than doctrine, and ended with:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Supporters of women’s ordination read that and, rather than seeing a “definitive” declaration, saw a lack of ex cathedra definition of the matter. They would cite a later statement by JPII that in OS he did not intend to make a dogmatic definition, and conclude that, despite the fairly clear language of OS, the matter was still open to debate.

Norma Jean Coon got it right, through the grace of God and the prayers of many people.

Coon ended her statement with a beautiful prayer of thanksgiving, praying for unity, forgiveness, wisdom, and continued growth.

Hopefully her example of courage and humility, and her prayers for greater unity and openness to the Spirit, will help others who persist in public dissent from Church teaching to see the error of their ways and return home to the Father in humility.