“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!

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.”

and

Okay, smile firmly in place, the editors at the National Catholic Reporter issued this amazingly daft bit of theologizing. They are just madder than a cut snake and have some venom to spit. The tragedy will be the scandal to anyone poisoned by this reckless conglomeration of bad theology and insidious interpretation.

I make some in-line comments in green with longer reaction between paragraphs where appropriate.

The call to the priesthood is a gift from God. It is rooted in baptism and is called forth and affirmed by the community because it is authentic and evident in the person as a charism. [Yes, but whither the hierarchy of the Church instituted by Christ on Peter, the Rock, and the other eleven Apostles, to teach the Truth guided by the Holy Spirit? Do they have a say in such a sensitive matter?] Catholic women who have discerned a call to the priesthood and have had that call affirmed by the community [again, whither the hierarchy?] should be ordained in the Roman Catholic church. Barring women from ordination to the priesthood is an injustice that cannot be allowed to stand. [Balderdash. To pretend to ordain women would be a far graver injustice, mostly because it would actually *be* an injustice.]

The most egregious statement in the Nov. 19 press release announcing Roy Bourgeois’ “excommunication, dismissal and laicization” is the assertion that Bourgeois’ “disobedience” and “campaign against the teachings of the Catholic church” was “ignoring the sensitivities of the faithful.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Bourgeois, attuned by a lifetime of listening to the marginalized, has heard the voice of the faithful and he has responded to that voice.

Ah, here is the crux of the matter: The stodgy hierarchy silenced and laicized a cleric with whom the editors at the Reporter agree. That is why they’re madder than a wet hen, and almost as coherent. Mr. Bourgeouis heard “the voice of the faithful,” and since what he claims to have heard matches what the Editors also want to hear, they and Mr. Bourgeouis are right, and the bishops of the Church in union with the pope, wrong. Q.E.D. “My magisterium trumps obedience to the one Christ established.” Pity. Obedience is a great virtue, and obedience even when one believes the order is misguided is a mark of many a canonized saint.

Moving along.

Bourgeois brings this issue to the real heart of the matter. He has said that no one can say who God can and cannot call to the priesthood [what if God Himself said so? … we'll get to that in a moment.], and to say that anatomy is somehow a barrier to God’s ability to call one of God’s own children forward places absurd limits on God’s power. The majority of the faithful believe this.

A breathtakingly unCatholic and ignorant thing to say. We believe that human persons are enfleshed spiritual beings, not animals with immortal souls. The soul of the person is primary in the person and the body is the physical manifestation of that soul. A person’s soul, not just his or her anatomy, is also masculine or feminine. A man is a father and a woman a mother not just because the biology works out that way, but because a man has a fatherly spiritual makeup and a woman a motherly spiritual makeup. The reason a given person is the sort of person who can be ordained is because he is male through and through, not because he has a penis. Impotency and sterility are impediments to Orders for a man!

The reason this is a hideous lie goes far beyond mere biology.

I recall a story concerning Father George Rutler of the Archdiocese of New York, a story I received second- or third-hand so my details may be fuzzy without damaging the point. He was leaving the hospital room of a woman to whom he had just administered the Anointing of the Sick and was stopped by a woman who tersely informed him, “I could have done that if I had a penis!” To which Father Rutler simply replied, “Madam, I used my thumb.” And continued on his way.

Again, men are not eligible for Orders because of anatomy; rather the substance of their masculinity at one and the same time makes men the “stuff” capable of receiving Holy Orders and also manifests itself physically in the male anatomy.

See: in order for a sacrament to confer the grace and the change it is intended to confer, the matter, the stuff, upon which or with which the sacrament is confected must be correct. Pouring milk does not confect baptism, only water. Likewise, pouring water and saying the words over a dog does not baptize the dog—there is no immortal soul made in the image and likeness of God to be baptized. Hosts must be of wheat flour and water, not rice flour or any other kind of flour. The wine must have some small amount of alcohol; it cannot be grape juice. The person upon which Holy Orders are conferred must be masculine. Performing the rite of ordination over a woman is a grand and hideous lie that imperils the souls of any who take part. That is all Catholic doctrine, not just my opinions.

As for “the majority of the faithful believe this,” I believe the Editors have us confused with the Anglicans who vote on doctrine from time to time. But then: the Anglicans just failed to allow women to be ordained bishops. What is an Editor at NCR to do?

We’re Catholic: Democracy is not our way. Right is right if the world be wrong.

Back to the Editors.

Let’s review the history of Rome’s response to the call of the faithful to ordain women: [Yes, let's.]

In April 1976 the Pontifical Biblical Commission concluded unanimously: “It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way and once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the presbyterate.” In further deliberation, the commission voted 12-5 in favor of the view that Scripture alone does not exclude the ordination of women, and 12-5 in favor of the view that the church could ordain women to the priesthood without going against Christ’s original intentions.

Okay, they gave their recommendation. And what happened next?

This:

In Inter Insigniores (dated Oct. 15, 1976, but released the following January), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said: “The Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.” That declaration, published with the approval of Pope Paul VI, was a relatively modest “does not consider herself authorized.”

Boom. The CDF, the congregation charged with safeguarding doctrine, within the same year of the pontifical commission cited above, affirmed a position contrary to the view the Editors got out of the commission, and the statement was published with the Pope’s signature.

Of course, while “does not consider herself authorized” does not rise to “we solemnly declare…,” the explanation given in that document (read it—it’s not very long or heady) sums up the reasons nicely. In short: God set the example while on earth, His Apostles understood the example and passed it along. It has remained the practice of the Church since the Apostles for a reason, and the Church is happy to delve into those reasons.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission can opine all it wants about the words of Scripture and what they explicitly or implicitly proscribe and prescribe; but their opinions, while valuable, are not doctrine. We are Catholic. We therefore have Sacred Tradition which includes but is not limited to what’s in the Bible. We can know God’s mind in the consistent practice of the Church as handed down from the time of the Apostles.

It should be further noted here that another papal commission appointed by John XXIII and expanded by Paul VI overwhelmingly recommended in their 1966 majority report that the Church should change her teaching on birth control. Of course, following that commission the seminal encyclical Humanae Vitae settled the matter quite the other direction. During that period, the upstart National Catholic Reporter got off the ground by publishing the leaked majority report from that commission and helping sow much discord in the time before and since Humanae Vitae was published. So bucking against the Church is nothing new for them.

But now they get into their delusional, “So you’re telling me there’s a chance…,” in earnest.

Pope John Paul II upped the ante considerably in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994): “We 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.” John Paul had wanted to describe the ban as “irreformable,” a much stronger stance than “definitively held.” This met substantial resistance from high-ranking bishops who gathered at a special Vatican meeting in March 1995 to discuss the document, NCR reported at the time. Even then, bishops attuned to the pastoral needs of the church had won a concession to the possibility of changing the teaching. ["So you're telling me there's a chance…"]

How anyone can be confused by the meaning of the words “the Church has no authority whatsoever to…” is beyond me. In so saying John Paul II essentially said, “it’s not even a question we can seriously discuss because no matter what reasons you bring up for why it’s allowable and/or a good idea, we have not the competence to change the matter.”

All I can figure by this notion of a “concession to the possibility of changing the teaching” is that some bishops got John Paul II to admit he had not declared, as a defined dogma, that the matter was closed. Not much of a concession, considering the plain language of that document and these two follow-ups:

• A 1995 document from the CDF that says,
  

  This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium,” and describes the ban on women’s ordination as belonging “to the deposit of the faith.

• A 1998 document, also from the CDF, which said,
  

  The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.

Note in that second passage the language at the end: while the Pope did not feel the need to go all of the way to definitive doctrinal definition, it wasn’t because he, and the Church, don’t believe that to be the case. But at any rate, the matter is not one up for question, it is simply a matter of how emphatically it is taught by the Magisterium. The Church avoids issuing definitive, doctrinal statements of the strongest degree, but that does not mean everything that hasn’t crossed that threshold is utterly negotiable.

I’ll spare you the next few paragraphs which amount to the Editors at NCR trying to convince themselves “So you’re telling me there’s a chance,” blowing smoke about whether a majority of bishops actually accept the teaching and how the mean old men in Rome squelch dissent seemingly for the sheer fun of it.

There is one line, however, that is indicative of their underlying error:

Many have pointed out that to say that the teaching is “founded on the written Word of God” completely ignored the 1976 findings of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

Yes, and? A pontifical commission is not the Magisterium, no matter how badly one may want contraception approved and women ordained. The pope who called for the commission is free to take their recommendations and do with them as he sees fit. If he reads their research and comes to a very different conclusion, that is his prerogative: he is Peter. He is the one whom Christ charged to “turn back and strengthen your brethren” when Satan sought to sift them all “like wheat.”

The Editors conclude with this terrible mangling of what is the Magisterium and a call to action, as though the papacy is a Congressional committee:

Blessed John Henry Newman said that there are three magisteria in the church [What, can't bring yourselves to capitalize "Church" in this proper usage?]: the bishops, the theologians and the people. On the issue of women’s ordination, two of the three voices have been silenced, which is why the third voice must now make itself heard.

What are they talking about? Because of the marvels of modern technology the dissenting classes have never been as capable to spread the seeds of discord and boldly proclaim their dissent from the keyboards and video cameras of convents, universities, monasteries, parishes, cathedrals, and the like, as they are today!

As for the “three magisteria,” I believe they have the Catholic Church confused with the Anglican communion—which, it should be noted, Blessed John Henry Newman fled for the historicity and security of Rome.

Newman indeed believed that the faithful and theologians had a role in the development and clarification of doctrine, but by no means did he teach that the laity’s or (God save us) the theologians’ roles were co-equal to the bishops in the establishing, defining, teaching of doctrine. Had he done so he would not be on the cusp of canonization by that same hierarchy.

The Magisterium, the official teaching office and capacity of the Church, is exercised by the Pope singly as the bishop of Rome, and by the whole body of bishops in union with the pope, all guided by and protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

Undaunted, they continue…

We must speak up in every forum available to us: in parish council meetings, faith-sharing groups, diocesan convocations and academic seminars. We should write letters to our bishops, to the editors of our local papers and television news channels.

Our message is that we believe the sensus fidelium is that the exclusion of women from the priesthood has no strong basis in Scripture or any other compelling rationale [Have you ever read Inter Insignores or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? If so, you're either daft or a liar.]; therefore, women should be ordained [So sayeth us, the new Magisterium]. We have heard the faithful assent to this in countless conversations in parish halls, lecture halls and family gatherings [Ah, anecdote. For what it's worth, I and most of my Catholic friends have heard and believe the opposite. Do we cancel you out?]. It has been studied and prayed over individually and in groups. The brave witness of the Women’s Ordination Conference, as one example, gives us assurance that the faithful have come to this conclusion after prayerful consideration and study — yes, even study of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. [So, daft? or liar?]

The sensus fidelium does not mean the general clamor of all baptized persons, or even of all baptized Catholics, and certainly not a poll of the noisiest people, but of all Catholics who retain the obedience of faith to the Roman pontiff and all legitimate authorities above them—i.e., faithful Catholics. On matters such as the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption—and even the “Santo subito!” chant that spontaneously erupted in St. Peter’s Square during the funeral Mass for Blessed John Paul II—the sensus fidelium pointed toward something that was already a wholesome thought, a good and legitimate possibility, with a corpus of supporting evidence and no major roadblocks within the Church to becoming a reality. The first two were defined, the third has been expedited and is on the way. The sensus fidelium isn’t there like a rival legislative body to countermand the clear and unequivocal teaching of the Pope, but to urge the Church toward a conclusion clearly within reach and clearly a worthwhile conclusion to reach.

NCR joins its voice with Roy Bourgeois and calls for the Catholic church to correct this unjust teaching.

The worst injustice—offense against God by injuring your neighbor—is scandal: Leading souls away from Christ and His Church, especially through heretical teaching, dulling their ability to receive the Truth. Scandal and heretical teaching poison the mind against the Truth and damage trust in the teachers, making the teachers’ task that much more difficult and dulling the individual’s ability to accept the Truth.

Mr. Roy Bourgeouis and all within the Church who persist in their errors and use their considerable megaphones to spread this discord sincerely need prayers, as do any whose faith is damaged by their prideful, irresponsible, writings.