On May 29, Monica Kilburn Smith of Calgary will be welcomed into the small worldwide community of female Roman Catholic priests, according to the Calgary Herald.
Hooray, says the editorialist, I mean the journalist. Never mind that her ordination ceremony will take place in a United Church and, of course, will not be recognized by the Catholic Church.
Kilburn Smith and local supporters of major reform within the Church say it will be one more small step in a campaign to “bring up questions, start discussion, open eyes and, eventually, win hearts.”
Isn’t that nice? The woman, Killjoy…I mean Kilburn Smith said, “The Roman Catholic Womenpriests movement… seems prophetic and courageous, something I feel called to be a part of.”
Is it possible you feel called to be an Episcopalian? Or how about a Hindu because maybe you’ll be reincarnated as a man next time.
Kilburn Smith says she’s eager to play a pastoral role for what she believes is a growing community of people who feel disconnected from the current church, but who remain Catholic at heart. (But not really)
Local members of my new favorite group called “Friends of Vatican II” who are working for reform within the Catholic church, say they don’t hide their opinions when talking to other Catholics, but they don’t actively try to proselytize – but then of course do so in the newspaper.
“It comes up in conversations after church and in other settings,” says Shelagh Mikulak. “I think there are a lot of Catholics who wouldn’t have a problem with female priests, but they don’t feel comfortable to come out in the open with their support…
Kilburn Smith says she and other Roman Catholic women priests value the sacramental tradition of their church, (Once again, but not really) but are practising a non-clerical, non-hierarchical form of ordained ministry.
“It’s leadership modelled on Jesus’ example of inclusivity and non-judgmental love,” she says.
Kilburn Smith says her concept of a priest’s role is, among other things, one who is “the holder of the sacred space” and who, like many, feels moved to use his or her God-given gifts in compassionate ministry.
The holder of the sacred space? I can’t make fun of it because I don’t even know what she’s saying there.
Jesus says the Kingdom of God is within you, and that statement doesn’t just apply to men. We are each called to minister in our own way. I believe being a priest is my way.”
Kilburn Smith says the historic Catholic rejection of a female priesthood is akin to “gender apartheid” and amounts to a tragic waste of human potential at a time when many Catholic parishes worldwide are without priests.
Supporter Angelina Waldon draws a comparison to the American civil rights movement and its early pioneers who faced entrenched attitudes with courage. “It’s like Rosa Parks; someone, somewhere has to be the first to stand up for what is right,” says Waldon.
Kilburn Smith says she and other Catholic women who aspire to the priesthood are often asked why they don’t simply move to another Christian denomination, such as Anglican, United or Presbyterian, where female clergy are welcomed.
“I’m Catholic in my bones,” she says. (Obviously not in her head) “If you want to bring about change, you have to stay within, not walk away and give up. If we didn’t care about the church and its future, we wouldn’t be doing this.”
Ready for the ending of this “news” piece? You might think you are but you’re not. Here it comes:
As the spring sun warms the earth and thoughts turn to the leafy renewal of spring, Kilburn Smith is convinced a more inclusive Catholic Church will bloom in the years ahead.
“This is a transition time in the Catholic world. We’ve been a long time in that moist soil,” Kilburn Smith says of those advocating for renewal.
“But now we are starting to sprout up. There is nothing that lives that does not change.”
I don’t even care about the “Rosa Parks” of the Church. I’m more interested right now in bringing that writer up on charges of malpractice for that paragraph.
May 5, 2008 at 1:47 pm
“Jesus says the Kingdom of God is within you…”
Actually, I believe it was Leo Tolstoy who wrote a book by that name. So now they’re getting Jesus mixed up with Tolstoy. This is the best they can do???
May 5, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Some translations render Luke 17:21 as “the kingdom of God is within you.” Others render it “the kingdom of God is among you.” There are other translations, as well.
This and the earlier post about the “minister” who says we don’t need Jesus are examples of the great heresy that has infected the modern Church. I call this heresy gnostic solipsism. Various gnostic groups claimed a variety of different beliefs, but central to all of them was the claim that God’s revelation, what we could know about God (hence “gnostic” from the Greek “gnosis” = knowledge) was available only to those who had received an infusion of secret knowledge. This knowledge, or revelation, was not available to all. Only those to whom this knowledge had been given could be saved.
Solipsism is the philosophy that the only reality is the self. I cannot know, as in have absolute confidence, that you even exist, or that your experiences are reality. I can only have confidence in what I experience.
Gnostic solipsism, then, takes gnosticism (access to supernatural knowledge not available to all) to it’s solipsistic (I am the only reality) extreme: that the only reality about God is what I experience, or what I believe about God.
Notice how many times these heretics talk about what God has revealed to them, what God has called them to, what they believe about God. That’s the card that trumps all others: I believe God is calling me to this. It doesn’t matter what the Church teaches. The only thing that matters is what I believe about God. My personal belief trumps all. Of course, the roots of this heresy go back to the early years of the Church, but it’s the direct, modern child of Protestantism.
Today, if you ask the modern believer what the most important religious question is, he or she will likely say: “What do I believe about God?” At first glance, that seems a logical most important first question. How do I answer any other questions about God until I answer the question of what I believe about God?
The Fathers, in contrast, didn’t give a hoot about what they believed about God. They might believe wrongly! For the Fathers, and for the Church of every age, the most important religious question is not “What do I believe about God?” but, rather, “What has God revealed to us about Himself?”
With the first question, there are no universal truths or, if there are, it doesn’t matter because we cannot know the truth with confidence, and the only truth that matters (the only truth on which I can be held accountable), is what I believe to be true.. It doesn’t even matter if God exists. If I believe that God doesn’t exist, then He doesn’t, because the only thing that matters is, not truth, but what I believe to be true.
With the second question, the only thing that matters is God and the truth that He has revealed. And, what’s more, we can know that truth, because God, in His generous mercy, has chosen to reveal His truth to us. We can know God’s truth and we can respond with faith and confidence.
The first question puts one on a self-centered spiritual journey, bound to lead one to confusion and heresy. The second question puts one on a God-centered spiritual journey, bound to lead one to the kingdom.
Bob Hunt
May 5, 2008 at 3:34 pm
how about a Hindu because maybe you’ll be reincarnated as a man next time
That made me LOL!
May 5, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I read this blog occasionally and I think it’s pretty funny (most of the time) but I’ve noticed a disturbing trend of mocking those whom they disagree with.
This woman obviously feels “called” to participate in the Church. I think its a conversation worth having that never gets talked about.
In this day and age I truly don’t understand why women can’t even be considered as priests.
May 5, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Anonymous, because in Christ’s day and age He didn’t consider ordaining them.
At the time of Our Lord’s earthly existence He was never bound by mere customs. He spoke freely to women and allowed them to follow Him. But when that night of the first ordinations occurred, He didn’t select any women to be in the upper room–even though His mother, the world’s only sinless woman, would have made an ideal candidate for the priesthood if there was ever going to be one!
What Christ did not do, we may not change. The priest is male because the role is essentially one of the offering of sacrifice, because the priest stands in the place of Christ at the altar, and because the Church is spoken of as female, as the mystical Bride of Christ.
Feminists often try to argue that our opposition to a female priesthood is somehow a cultural thing, that because the cultures of the first century didn’t allow women to serve in these leadership roles our Church has somehow become poisoned with a gender-exclusive mindset that lingered for all the intervening centuries. But this is a false and reductive view, not only because it’s a pretty poor view of the Holy Spirit to say He intended for women to be priests but let the Church get away with institutional discrimination for 2,000 years, but also because the culture of the priestess was extremely widespread in the ancient world, and aside from the Jewish practice of a male-only priesthood few religions existed at the time of Christ which didn’t have some sort of priestess/female goddess worship.
So choosing NOT to ordain women meant that Our Lord was deliberately going against the prevailing pagan cultures and keeping the custom of the ancient Israelites in selecting only men to be priests; I’m inclined to believe that He knew what He was doing.
May 5, 2008 at 5:44 pm
“In this day and age I truly don’t understand why women can’t even be considered as priests.”
First of all, we’re not discussing a trend or a fashion statement. This is a teaching of the Church. It is not an issue that is confined to this era; indeed, even in the early Church numerous heretical sects arose in which women attempted to perform priestly rites. The owners of this forum understand this, proclaim it, and their understanding is presumed in all discussions in this forum. It’s not a democracy. Those who visit are guests, and the above is to be understood by the guests.
Those who attack this teaching are attacking the Church. Those who attack Her, attack the Mother of those loyal to Her. (Mother Church,” remember?) This is not a quaint metaphor. It is as real and as ancient an observance as is the Church Herself.
Are you saying we should let someone pick on our Mother?
May 5, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Anonymous,
I understand and agree with your comment about mocking those with whom you disagree. I’ve noticed that trend on this blog also. I try to keep my own comments, and even my criticisms, civil. At the same time, there’s nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, and being wishy-washy does no one any favors. It’s possible to be critical, even sharply critical, and civil.
Having said that, I’m curious what “this day and age” has to do with the matter of women being priests. God is eternal, as is His holy will. The critical question (indeed, the only question that matters) is: Is it God’s will that women serve as priests in the Church?
If the answer to the question is “yes,” than, presumably, God can move all the intransigent sexists in the Church out of the way to accomplish His will. If the answer is “no,” than why would anyone want women to be priests, regardless of how they felt about the answer or how they felt called?
Kilburn Smith does not feel called to participate in the Church. She feels called to be a priest in the Church. None of us are “called” to participate in the Church. To do so is essential to being a Catholic, because our relationship with Christ, the head, and our relationship with the Church, his body, is the same relationship.
Is God calling women to the priesthood? The Church, “the pillar and foundation of truth,” has said “no” to that question for twenty centuries. This is a question worth having that never gets talked about? Please don’t take this as mocking but, honestly, where have you been? If you don’t know the Church’s reasoning, there are plenty of resources that speak to that. If you don’t like the Church’s answer, that’s another matter entirely.
We’ve talked about this question. The Church, which is God’s instrument of revelation, has said “no.” Final answer.
Bob Hunt
May 5, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Anonymous:
Tell you what. I have an article by Peter Kreeft, written about fifteen years ago, that lays the whole thing out about women priests. It doesn’t take long to read, and it was a real eye-opener for me at the time. If you e-mail me privately (manwithblackhat at yahoo dot com), I will send the pdf file to you.
I don’t get any more civil than that.
May 5, 2008 at 9:12 pm
silly women priests don’t they know dress up is only for holloween and little children,
May 5, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Bob,
Joe was mocking there. it wasn’t me. See 😉
May 5, 2008 at 10:07 pm
“This is a transition time in the Catholic world. We’ve been a long time in that moist soil,” Kilburn Smith says of those advocating for renewal.
“But now we are starting to sprout up. There is nothing that lives that does not change.”
Good things sprout out of moist soil, but so do weeds. Me thinks this progressive attitude is a load of “crop”.
And that’s not mocking, but merely calling a spade a spade.
May 6, 2008 at 3:28 am
Is it a garden spade?
May 6, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I have to say I appreciate the way Joe spelled it “hollow”een instead of “hallow”een. Whether intentional or not, it does make a necessary distinction between those who hallow God and those whose faith is hollow.
And, if it’s a garden spade, it must be a secret garden, as in secret knowledge, as in gnostic!
Oh, I have to stop now. You people are rubbing off on me in all the wrong ways! :0
Bob
May 6, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Come to the dark side, Bob.
May 6, 2008 at 8:08 pm
I have alwas found that terms like “dialogue” and “discussion”, and “conversation” are code words.
That code means, IMHO, they want to talk about it until they get the answer they want. A discussion is never “over” until that event occurs. Untill then, it’s still “open” for discussion.
May 6, 2008 at 8:14 pm
“I have alwas found that terms like ‘dialogue’ and ‘discussion’, and ‘conversation’ are code words.”
It gets better. When they get what they want, they accuse detractors who ask for the same thing of being “divisive.”
As the saying goes, “Verbal engineering precedes social engineering.”
May 6, 2008 at 9:11 pm
David:
…”As the saying goes, “Verbal engineering precedes social engineering.” “
One of the best non-theological books I’ve ever read was George Orwell’s 1984.
Paraphrasing …those who control the language control thought; those who control thought control the world.
If that quote is not from the book, it should have been.
PAX~
May 23, 2008 at 2:08 am
That’s a great article
Church Software Management