Catholic Group Ordains Woman Priest in North Carolina

[Fish and Bread]

Link:

Rebel Catholic group defies church, ordains woman priest in NC

First, I need to give credit to the two people who have already posted this to CF in different areas. I don't usually re-post links that I've seen elsewhere on CF itself, but in this case I thought that it might be of interest to the specific group that hangs out here on TLT, and that we might be able to have a discussion that would take a different vector than the discussion on the other forums where it was posted inevitably will.

Second, I should mention that I don't necessarily agree with the way the article has categorized this in several respects- it's just the only article available that I can find.

Anyway, as regular readers here know, I am an advocate of Rome ordaining women as priests. I would even say that it's possible that the movement may have to start in an unsanctioned way and then gain sanction later.

However, I have an issue with Roman Catholic Women Priests (the organization, not the concept), which is that they trace their Apostolic Succession to some mystery bishop in union with Rome who was supposed to have ordained the first members of their group into the priesthood some years ago, and later consecrated the first female bishop in their group, but who they refuse to name or reveal. I believe women *can* be ordained as priests and that they *should* be ordained as priests, but I am not sure that these women *were* ordained as priests.

Apostolic Succession through bishops is an important part of the Catholic tradition. It's problematical if they can't reveal the bishop from whom their Apostolic Succession came and don't have the bishop himself confirming that it was done, or video showing that it was done. They could have just made it up. I'm not accusing them of having done so, but if you're going to start an organization like this and have a movement like this that challenges Rome's current discipline (Some would argue doctrine) and ordain women to the priesthood, you really need to dot your "i"s and cross your "t"s and make sure people have no reason to doubt that things have happened as you say they have.

What I would suggest going forward, since they obviously can't change the past, is that at any future consecrations of bishops, they invite bishops from the Old Catholic Church in Europe (Not in union with Rome), which has solid lines of Apostolic Succession, to be a co-consecraters. That way eventually the question of who the bishop on the boat was, and if there was really a bishop on the boat, will be moot. You only need one bishop in Apostolic Succession to consecrate a bishop or ordain a priest. That is part of why it's traditional to have three or more bishops present at a consecration- because if any of the lines of Apostolic Succession in one or more bishops is later called into question- you know that the person being made a bishop is still a bishop through the bishop or bishops who's lines of Apostolic Succession are impeccable. I'd also suggest conditional re-ordinations and re-consecrations of the existing priests and bishops in this group at the hands of the first bishop consecrated at a ceremony with the Old Catholic bishop present.

It also would have been nice if, assuming there is a bishop in union with Rome who did the first ordination and first consecration, if he would have the conviction of his conscience and reveal himself. I realize he'd lose his job, but he's already been automatically excommunicated according to canon law, he just isn't facing up to the consequences of his actions in a public way. Sometimes when you are civilly disobedient, even in a Church, you need to stand up and be willing to face the consequences.

He, assuming he exists, has put these women in a tough position by ordaining them and then consecrating one of them, but refusing to reveal that he has done so and forcing them just to say that some anonymous bishop did it. If he feels strongly enough about this that he was willing to go ahead and ordain these women, he should feel strongly enough about it that he will back them by revealing that he did it. God knows he ordained them and God is who he ultimately must answer to, so if he is willing to do this and believes it is God's will, he should be willing to take his lumps with the Pope to make sure that this group has credibility and isn't stuck talking about their secret possibly imaginary bishop friend.

Also, as an aside, in the dotting your "i"s and crossing your "t"s department, I'd be interested in what type of theological and pastoral education these women have received. If they want us to take them seriously, it's important that there be educational standards and serious spiritual discernment about who is ordained. I would expect at least Masters of Divinity. Maybe all of those ordained have their masters degrees or doctorates in theology from various universities or seminaries. I'm not sure. But sometimes in the past I've gotten the impression that this is being done a little haphazardly. I hope I'm wrong about that.

Again, there is an opportunity to course correct and have higher standards in the future if there haven't been high standards in the past. Existing priests and postulation to the priesthood could be asked to get the appropriate theological and pastoral credits at universities that will take them. There actually are Roman Catholic seminaries that open classes to women. Perhaps Episcopalian or Lutheran seminaries could be used. And then that could be followed by 6 months of intensive training by the existing ordained in their theology and tradition- specifically Roman Catholic stuff, if they, for example, are graduates of an Episcopalian seminary.

 

[Tallguy88]

The article said this happened in a Protestant church and that she's a Protestant convert. Why did she convert to Catholicism if she beliefs it's wrong on one of its most widely known dogmas? She even acknowledges that she should be excommunicated for her actions.

I'm not trying to knock the idea of woman priests itself, not in TLT. But this one seems a bit out there. Why not become Old Catholic or Episcopalian? They are mostly Catholic and ordain women to be priests. But by claiming to still be a part of the RCC and a valid priest within the Church, she has set herself up to be a rogue with a very limited flock vs the other groups mentioned. As the actual canonical Bishop said, she will have a fake Eucharist at a fake Mass. It would make more sense if she were a born Catholic who became a female priest, rather than a convert.

 

[Fish and Bread]

The article said this happened in a Protestant church and that she's a Protestant convert. Why did she convert to Catholicism if she beliefs it's wrong on one of its most widely known dogmas? She even acknowledges that she should be excommunicated for her actions.

I'm not trying to knock the idea of woman priests itself, not in TLT. But this one seems a bit out there. Why not become Old Catholic or Episcopalian? They are mostly Catholic and ordain women to be priests. But by claiming to still be a part of the RCC and a valid priest within the Church, she has set herself up to be a rogue with a very limited flock vs the other groups mentioned. As the actual canonical Bishop said, she will have a fake Eucharist at a fake Mass. It would make more sense if she were a born Catholic who became a female priest, rather than a convert.

Well, she didn't say that she "should" be excommunicated, she said she was sure she "would" be. Its a small nuance, but important- she's recognizing the fact of the thing, not saying that she thinks its deserved. Its pretty clear that she was excommunicated automatically upon ordination, just as on the conservative end of the spectrum, the SSPX bishops were excommunicated at the second of their concecrations. Interestingly, it appears a revision Pope Benedict made in 2007 is what puts this in place for a woman being ordained as a priest- previously, it was only for people of either sex being concerated as bishops without Rome's consent, whereas priests were simply automatically suspended and their masses considered valid but illicit.

Actually, how this would have been handled prior to Benedict's revisions would have been interesting in and of itself, because with Rome currently not recognizing women as valid matter for the sacrament of ordination ("I'm not invalid matter, you're the invalid matter!". Sorry- a bit of strange political humor there.), so technically the automatic excommunication that comes with consecrating a bishop might not have applied since Rome doesn't recognize that a bishop is really being consecrated when a woman is concecrated, or if all the people doing the consecration are women. But we live after 2007, so the bishops in this group consecrated after that time have been automatically excommunicated.

Of course, the perhaps more important question is what being excommunicated means. In general, its currently thought of as the people who make the rules telling you that in their expert opinion they think you are in danger of going to hell, it isn't an attempt to condemn you to hell by ultilizing the Church's powers to bind and loose, or a guarantee that you'll wind up in hell even if you don't repent.

God reserves the right to make the final decision. There could easily be excommunicated people who go to heaven without recantation. I know Joan of Arc was burned as a heretic and 400 years later, she was named a Saint. There is a case to be made that in the naming of Saints, the Church may be infallibly saying that those people are in heaven, but there is no case to be made (that I've heard of, anyway) that the Church can infallibly state that any specific baptized person who has died is in hell.

Of course, as an aside, excommunication does bar people from receiving communiom in churches that are in full union with Rome until such a time as that excommunication might be lifted.

Excommunication is a serious thing and it should give people pause, especially people who are devoting their lives to God as ordained Catholic bishops and priests. However, at the same time, the primacy of conscience is important, and sometimes doing the right thing is more important than following the rules. If these women are truly called by God and part of God's plan for the Church, then maybe this is a risk they have to take.

The response of the spokesperson for the diocese of Charlotte struck me as kind of tone-death. Saying “I hope that Catholics in the diocese will understand that it would be sinful to receive a fake sacrament from a woman priest and that includes attending a fake Mass.” is not the way to persuade people on the fence to his side. I understand that's what he believes and that he is trying to warn local Catholics there about what he sees a serious situation, but the repetition of the word "fake" is only a step away from calling these priests "girls playing dressup" or something- its very inflammatory phrasing.

I'd also be interested in seeing chapter and verse (That's an expression, I am not lookong for an actual quote from scriptire, I am looking for a quote from canon law) that simply *attending* one of these masses is sinful, as the spokesperson for the diocese claims. Its not a sin for a Romam Catholic to go to an Episcopalian mass or a Lutheran service where a woman priest or pastor presides- such things are even encouraged to promote ecumenical understanding (Provided that one refrains from communing there and still attends a Sunday mass in union with Rome as well if it is possible to do so). I don't see why someone going to check this out would be automatically assumed to be sinning. It seems like overkill. Even a very conservative reading of things would still say it depends on the person's interior disposition.

I get the feeling that some of the strong reactions against this from dioscene chancellories may af least be subconciously motivated by factors that go beyond just a desire to instruct people on practical theology as they see it. They know that the majority of American Catholics think the time has come to ordain women, and they feel threatened, IMO.

 

[Fish and Bread]

One thing raised in TallGuy's post (and some other reactions I've seen) that I thought might be worth discussing that I skipped above because it didn't fit naturally into the flow of the response I was typing, is the perception that maybe this is in part something that shouldn't have happened because the new priest is a convert and a divorcee (This may go beyond what TallGuy said, but I'm sure some other people are thinking it even if he isn't).

Its not unreasonable to ask whether this was the right type of candidate to ordain at this time from a public relations perspective.

RCWP on their website seems to essentially be trying to position themselves as a movement within the Church that is stepping outside the normal lines of hiearchy and church discipline because they feel they have to in order to correct what they see as a grave injustice. Ultimately, the end goal seems to not be to create a separate church, but to give Rome a push towards more seriously considering ordaining women, with the implicit idea that the existing women who have been ordained and the existing parishes, communities, or chapels associated with this movement or set up by it would then in some way be absorbed into the existing institutional church structure.

The invitation to the local Latin Rite bishop in communion with Rome to attend this and the frequent invocations of Pope Francis point to that. They want eventually to be in communion with Rome themselves- they aren't trying to put forward their own Pope or anything. Pope Francis is their Pope to them even if he is not recognizing these ordinations and communties.

In light of all that, it is probably worth asking if these early ordinations should be chosen as carefully as possible to make sure that the issue stays narrowly focused on the reform they want and that there are no questions in the background of those ordained that would divert attention from where they are trying to go with this.

When the Dodgers chose Jackie Robinson to be the first African-American player in major league baseball, it was in large part for his skill, and he had plenty of skill, his statistics are outstanding. However, there were probably some African-Americans who were considered more skilled than he was who were playing in a league only open to African-Americans. The reason the GM of ths Dodgers picked Robinson over the small number of guys who might have outperformed him, is that he knew Robinson had model character and would be a good representative for integration in baseball and not feed into any negative sterotypes that might set back the cause of racial integration in baseball.

Sometimes its very important that the people who go first with something be people who can represent it well. In the baseball example, eventually when the flood gates opened, African-American ballplayers were in theory not charged with meeting any additional critera relative to whites. But the people who went first were chosen in part to be able to sell the concept to a skeptical public.

I am a little concerned that there may not be the level of planning, strategy, and attention to detail necessary here to get from point A to point B. However, to be fair, I really don't know the ins and outs of what's going on. Maybe they do have a really solid strategy that has been really well thought out and I just don't know about it because I am not part of their organization. Their hearts seem to be in the right place.

 

[Robinus]

I'm not trying to knock the idea of woman priests itself,

I am .

Pope Francis and all previous Popes who have spoken on this issue have said "No" .

I go with the Magisterium .

 

[Paidiske]

Also, as an aside, in the dotting your "i"s and crossing your "t"s department, I'd be interested in what type of theological and pastoral education these women have received. If they want us to take them seriously, it's important that there be educational standards and serious spiritual discernment about who is ordained. I would expect at least Masters of Divinity. Maybe all of those ordained have their masters degrees or doctorates in theology from various universities or seminaries. I'm not sure. But sometimes in the past I've gotten the impression that this is being done a little haphazardly. I hope I'm wrong about that.

I posted something along those lines in one of the other threads. My question was, when was she deaconed and what kind of diaconate has she served? And this is all part of the same concern. I've seen some unfortunate cases when people who should have had more training than they did have been ordained because *reasons*, and it doesn't always end well, at all.

The response of the spokesperson for the diocese of Charlotte struck me as kind of tone-death. Saying “I hope that Catholics in the diocese will understand that it would be sinful to receive a fake sacrament from a woman priest and that includes attending a fake Mass.” is not the way to persuade people on the fence to his side. I understand that's what he believes and that he is trying to warn local Catholics there about what he sees a serious situation, but the repetition of the word "fake" is only a step away from calling these priests "girls playing dressup" or something- its very inflammatory phrasing.

I get the feeling that some of the strong reactions against this from dioscene chancellories may af least be subconciously motivated by factors that go beyond just a desire to instruct people on practical theology as they see it. They know that the majority of American Catholics think the time has come to ordain women, and they feel threatened, IMO.

Of course it was deliberate. They know what will happen. Catholics in good standing will invite her into their homes, and into their parish churches if they can do it while Father isn't looking. They'll ask her to say mass and hear confessions. (How do I know? It's exactly what happens with Anglican women. I can practically guarantee that if I popped up the road to Sydney (where they don't ordain women) - which I've never done - someone would ask me to do something priestly while there. And I've had enough Catholics come to me for various things that I have no doubt that they'd be perfectly willing to go to someone they see as more Catholic). The local Catholic authorities will be wanting to nip that in the bud straight away; because the more it's done, the more people come to think of it as normal and right and proper.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Edited.

 

[Tallguy88]

I know I am not Catholic, and my opinion on the issue of the Catholic Church ordaining women does not hold any weight, but I am glad to see this finally happened. I am pleased whenever women are advanced in any area of life or in society that has been historically dominated by men. I have a personal distaste for patriarchy and I would like to see it crushed whenever or wherever it rears its head. It is the 21st Century for goodness sake and patriarchy is a dinosaur that should be extinct by now.

Please note: I mean no disrespect to my Catholic friends.

I was just sharing my personal opinion on the issue.

This lady is by no means the first woman who claimed to be a validly ordained Catholic priest, she's just the most recent one. While we can argue for or against female ordination, the fact remains that it is canonically impossible at this time and the Church teaches that it is theologically impossible as well. Basically, by becoming "ordained" she has received latae sententiae excommunication (automatic) and so has everyone who assisted at her ordination. The practical effect is that she can no longer receive the Sacraments licitly. Only by going to the Bishop and renouncing her actions can she be reconciled. And not only has she been cut off from the Church, so have her accomplices. Anyone who assists at her "Mass" will also be excommunicate. Anyone who partakes of her eucharist will be guilty of sacrilege and need Confession to be in good standing again.

This is all according to the theology and laws of the Church she claims to be a part of. It's why I wonder why she didn't choose a different denomination to be ordained into. One more receptive to it.

Also, the Church's theology is not based on patriarchy. There's very good theology behind a male only priesthood. While it can be debated in TLT whether it should be expanded, it isn't simple patriarchy. Even Pope Francis (hardly a hardline traditionalist) says the door is closed on the question of female ordination, so it has no mainstream theological support.

 

[Paidiske]

The different denomination thing is tricky. I've watched some Catholic women do that; move denominations to be ordained. Some of them end up content and others don't.

I think that if you truly believe as a Catholic (except on this one point), then you're not going to be a very happy Anglican, even of the quite high church variety. Can't say much about Old Catholics because I don't know how close to Roman Catholics they really are; but in most places they're tiny to non-existent, so hardly a realistic option.

And I suspect that for some of these women they feel that the right thing to do is fight for the change they believe in. I don't envy them...

 

[Fantine]

Jesus said wherever two or three are gathered in His name He is among them--and I believe it is so for her congregation as well. She is probably reaching people who may not be reached by other faith expressions.

Some people may think Jesus is very concerned about labels and denominations. I'm not one of those people.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

she looks happy