Vatican Slam Dance?

Ken Shepherd of NewsBusters posts about a May 30th Associated Press piece that originally stated that the Vatican is "slamming the door on attempts by women to become priests in the Roman Catholic Church." As Shepherd notes, "But it's rather hard to slam shut a door that was never open, which is what Catholic Church teaching holds about women serving in the priesthood." The piece has since been revised:

The Vatican insisted Friday that it is properly following Christian tradition by excluding females from the priesthood as it issued a new warning that women taking part in ordinations will be excommunicated.

The move dashed the hopes both of women seeking to be priests and of Catholics who see that as an option for a church struggling to recruit men.

Yes, dashes their hopes just like I dash the hopes of my three-year-old son each and every morning when he asks some variation of this question: "Can I have a cookie for breakfast?" He knows what the answer will be, but still keeps up his hopes by arguing, for example, "But I want a cookie for breakfast!" This is accompanied on occasion with the raising of voice and a certain belligerent stare. The answer remains the same.

The difference, of course, is that if I gave my son a cookie at 8:42 a.m., I wouldn't be violating or undermining the teaching of Jesus and His Church. Then again, my son is three years old, and I have modest hopes that by the time he is, say, thirty-six-years old, he'll understand why I so often dashed his hopes of cookies for breakfast.

Back to the AP piece:

The church has always banned the ordination of women by stating that the priesthood is reserved for males. The new decree is explicit in its reference to women.

Thank goodness, since it has been a rather murky, uncertain issue until now. Ha. Not at all. What is hard to understand about this section from the Catechism, which quotes from the Code of Canon Law?

"Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination." The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible. (CCC 1577)

"I want a cookie for breakfast!"

The answer is still the same. And yet, for some reason, I suspect the same women and their supporters will continue to say the same thing.

• Excommunication for the "ordination" of priestettes (May 30, 2008)

Comments

[Thomas]

Forget about slamming shut a door that was never opened. The door doesn't even exist.

[Stephen Sparrow]

All I wish to know is that if Jesus had wanted his church to have female priests, then why was his mother not invited to the Last Supper.

Is that a reasoable question or merely a silly one?

[LJ]

"And yet, for some reason, I suspect the same women and their supporters will continue to say the same thing."

Right you are. Roman Catholic Womenpriests has issued a press release saying they "reject" the decree.

It is an interesting logical pretzel they have created for themselves. Presumeably they want the priesthood for more than a fashion statement, ie., they desire the ordination, the sacrament that allows them to confer the other sacraments, in particular confecting the Eucharist. It would seem that because they desire that ordination, they accept the fact that the authority of ordination is a requirement. Indeed, they seek out renegade Bishops to attempt ordination.
But then they defy the authority itself and de facto reject that authority when the authority does not give them what they want. Just like the Protestants of the 16th century they cast about for another source of authority. They think they have found some sort of democratic argument in the "mystical body of Christ", or the much misunderstood "consent of the faithful" and then appeal to the authority of their own conscience, forgetting that their own private conscience cannot compel the rest of us anyway.
The problem is that if they hold their conscience up against the Church believing themselves to be right, they cannot on the other hand ask that same Church for the authority that is precisely at stake in their protest.

This decree is simply making explicit what their logic hasn't told them, ie. you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you wish to protest in conscience, here are the consequences of specific actions.

[Questioner]

May I give a suggestion for a later entry? Try addressing the charges raised in this recent article without resorting to sarcasm, instead addressing the legitimate underlying sentiments.

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n2/how_roman_catholic_neocons.html

Thank you.

[Augustine II]

Questioner, I suspected that your questions weren't genuine. Thanks for the ironic confirmation.

[LJ]

But Questioner, humour is one of the great tools of learning. In this case Carl has used humour to make the underlying truth clear about female ordination;

It ain't going to happen.

Not in the real world, at least. Some women have been playing make-believe, and in that world they really think they are priests and bishops. The Church has been trying to bring them out of their fantasy world, back to the real one but thy insist on the pretense, so she has finally given them the explicit consequences of their actions.

Here's a fantasy scenario they might like to try. Suppose some huge natural force, say a massive pulse from the sun, were to suddenly fry every bit of technology we have, like our cars, planes, computers, medical technology (including the pill, etc.), in short, everything that we've built our current culture upon and see as normal. Push us back 600 to 1000 years.
Guess what, although our culture would be radically different, the Church would be the same.

They need to see the big picture.

[Questioner]

I'm afraid that my questions are very genuine. I'm afraid that there are serious matters to discuss. I'm afraid that there is a seedy underbelly of the conservative movement. However, if I really did come off poorly, then I apologize again. I am sick and tired of failing to warn against rightist extremism.

[brendon]

Questioner,

There are far too many bad arguments in that article to go through the whole thing, but I will point out some of the worst ones.

From the article: Today there are approximately 400,000 frozen blastocysts lying in a state of frozen limbo at in-vitro fertilization clinics. For thousands of these embryos, the decision has already been made that they will never be transferred to a woman's body and that means they will never grow beyond a tiny clump of undifferentiated cells briefly existing in a petri dish.

Sed contra: None of this is relevant to what the embryos are. It confuses the issue.

From the article: Most orthodox Catholics and fundamentalist evangelicals believe that those clumps of cells constitute a human being, but most of us don't think that microscopic cellular life is equal to, or the same thing as, a human life.

Sed contra: This is an example of the fallacy of accident. That said "clumps of cells" are microscopic tells us nothing about what they are, but only tells us that some kind of relationship exists between their size and ours. This is the accident of relation. If one wanted to argue that these "clumps of cells" were not human, one's argument would have to rest on what is substantial to them rather than what is accidental.

From the article: Other religious traditions acknowledge the product of fertilization to be a life but do not accord it the status of a human being. For example, both Judaism and Islam hold that full human status is acquired progressively during embryonic development, not at fertilization.

Sed contra: Substance does not admit to degrees. It is impossible to acquire humanity progressively, since "humanity" means nothing less than being human. There is no such thing as almost-human or sorta-human. There is only human and non-human.

From the article: Empirical studies long ago revealed that a newly created embryo can either split into multiple embryos or unite with another embryo to form a single embryo. Until that happens, individuality is far from guaranteed.

Sed contra: Obviously false. Two separate embryos are, by definition, individuated from each other and are thus individuals possessing individuality. That at some later state this may change does not alter the fact. That one embryo may corrupt another via absorption does not render either of them some different substance than what they are. That one embryo my generate another by splitting does not render it some different substance than what it is.

From the article: What's more, before an embryo can successfully develop into a fetus there is yet another intervening event that must first occur: attachment to the uterine wall of which only 30 to 40 percent of zygotes ever survive to do.

Sed contra: Fallacy of the accident. Confuses the accident of where (the uterine wall) with substance. The fact that the accident of where at some times plays a part in whether or not something survives does not change the fact that it is an accident. If I am stranded in the desert, then I am probably going to die. But I'm still a human being until I actually do.

From the article: It follows that an embryo situated in a petri dish is no more an individual human being than an unplanted acorn is an oak tree.

Sed contra: The analogy obviously fails due to the preceding points in its favor being fallacious. Moreover, it is fallacious because an acorn is an oak tree insofar as the substance of the embryo it contains is concerned. All differences are accidental, just as the difference between adult and child is accidental. To say an acorn isn't an oak is as much equivocation as to say a child isn't a man. It is only true if you are using the terms "man" and "oak" to mean a mature member of the species rather than any member of the species.

From the article: In fact, there is nothing in the Gospels to indicate that Jesus would oppose stem cell research.

Sed contra: "And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God. Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, bear not false witness, do no fraud, honour thy father and mother" (Mark 10: 18-19, emphasis added). One needs to demonstrate that an embryo is not a human being before one can argue that this doesn't apply to abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

From the article: The healing and the amelioration of the sick and disabled is far more deeply rooted in the world's spiritual traditions than the modern concept that life begins at fertilization.

Sed contra: Cognitive dissonance. Is one supposed to listen to the findings of modern science or not? Modern science tells us that a fertilized embryo is a living being that possesses a human genetic code. How can it be anything other than a human life? Or is one supposed to ignore this scientific evidence because it is direct evidence against the author's argument?

The ad hominum argument about the Inquisition is just sad. But then, the entire article is so chock full of fallacies that one shouldn't have expected anything different.

The article is, one the whole, a very poor argument for embryonic stem cell research. But it would have to be, since it is arguing for allowing a moral evil, viz. the killing of human beings. I fear that I have wasted my time, and that you will consider this just another case of "rightist extremism" in action, but one can always hope for the best. Besides, I've been trained to enjoy "jumping into the bear pit" to tear poor arguments apart.

[Questioner]

No, no, I appreciate your efforts, Brendon. I'm not here to mock the Catholic faith. On the contrary, I want to understand the truth better.

[Charles E Flynn]

Brendon,

I doubt you have wasted your time. In fact, I would not be surprised if your blog gets more traffic.

[kentuckyliz]

Back to the topic. In the Journal of Counseling and Development (for counseling psychologists and counselors), there was an article about a female client desiring to become a Catholic priest.

Counselors are supposed to be advocates for social justice; however, we also have a thing called Reality Therapy. So whaddya do?

Even if you think the Catholic church should have women priests, evaluate the likelihood of that happening. Then, as the counselor/psychologist, do you continue to encourage this client to pursue an unrealistic goal?

Or if you view sanity as the mind's ability to adapt to reality, do you help this client grieve her lost unrealistic hope and find a new path based on her talents, skills, abilities, and resources/opportunities available to her?

I used to want to be a veterinarian, until I failed high school chemistry. You can't become a vet if you can't pass chemistry. In fact, a lot of things are off the table at that point. No amount of wishful thinking, social protest, letter writing, etc. will change that reality.

Did failing chemistry mean that I had no other options in life--it's VET or NOTHING!!!! ?? No. When a person bumps up against limits (internal or external), one goes to Plan B.

Priestess wannabes, time for Plan B. Quit whining, chin up, you have worth in this world, quit attaching your worth to the priesthood. Either that or become an Episcopalian. I think some of the Orthodox churches have deaconesses if that is good enough for you. (It's the equivalent of an apostolic nun in the Catholic Church.)

[Lorraine V. Murray]

It is also true that the Church has slammed the door on men becoming nuns. Pity the poor men who wish to enter a convent and become a Mother Superior! And then there is nature itself, which has shut the door on women becoming Dads, and men giving birth. It just ain't fair!!

[Gail]

Lorraine: Ha ha! That is a great one.

Brendon: Nice post. I am always surprised at people who use science to defend the idea of experimenting on embryos but don't pay any attention to the science of embryology, which is quite clear. An embryo IS an example of whatever creature it belongs to, and the word "embryo" just explains what stage in life that creature is at. It does not identify a separate SORT of creature.

Questioner: Does this make sense to you? Say a woman donates an egg and a man donates a sperm, and a doctor puts them together in a petri dish and they unite. If the doctor puts the blastocyst (another word for a creature at a certain stage in development, not a different kind of creature) in the woman's womb, it will either implant in her uterus or it will die -- but in either case it will be the same organism. If the doctor freezes it, it will be the same organism (only frozen). If the doctor drops the petri dish on the floor, it will be the same organism that dies. If the doctor implants it in a different woman's uterus (embryo adoption), the same organism will either implant into that woman's uturus and live, or will die. And if a doctor lets it grow for a little while and then cuts it up for research, it will still be the same organism that could have had the other fates listed above. And that's why embryonic stem cell research is wrong. You can't make it into something else by calling it something else.

[Ken Shepherd]

Thanks for the link, Carl. Good post.