Should Catholic bishops express "respect" for mockery?

Back on August 2nd I posted about a recent "ordination ceremony" of female "Catholic" priestettes that took place in Gresham, Oregon (at a United Church of Christ), just up the road from me. The opening line of the KOIN.com "news" piece was classically clueless: "Oregon's first female Catholic priest was ordained in Gresham on Sunday. It's a history-making milestone, but one the Catholic Church does not recognize." A few days ago Archbishop John Vlazny finally remarked on the charade and explained why it took a while to do so:

On Friday, Aug. 17, the Oregonian reported on a religious ceremony at Zion United Church of Christ in Gresham which was described as a Roman Catholic “ordination.” According to the report, we now have the first woman Roman Catholic priest in Oregon.

Most readers, hopefully, were somewhat suspicious about the event when they learned it did not take place in a Catholic church. Out of respect for those involved in the ceremony, I had decided to make no public statement. The Oregonian also said nothing for three weeks.

Stop! "Out of respect for those involved..."? What? What is more important for a Catholic—whether a bishop, religious, or lay person: respect for the Church and truth, or respect for those who mock the Church and truth? (And why the reference to The Oregonian? It makes it sound as though the Archbishop is taking his cues from a newspaper--and a very liberal, less-than-Catholic-friendly one at that.) It's not as though the Archbishop is naming names or handing out excommunications. Far from it:

My main purpose in speaking up now is to assure you that there was no ordination of a Roman Catholic priest at Zion United Church of Christ in Gresham on July 28. Even though Catholics were involved, the claim that it was a Catholic ceremony is wrong but, hopefully, not intentionally disrespectful of a sacrament which we Catholics regard as a precious treasure, one for which we are called to exercise reverent and faithful stewardship.

Hopefully "not intentionally disrespectful..."?! This would be a fine time to insert some clarification about objective and subjective culpability. Objectively, this was a grave act of disobedience and a blatant mockery of one of the sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ. Whether or not everyone involved understands that is a separate matter. But for the sake of the faithful (and others), how about drawing some clear lines and distinctions here instead of lapsing into fuzzy, "let's all just get along" sentiment? Doesn't it seem apparent that such is part and parcel of faithful stewardship?

Our relationships with other churches are sometimes fragile because of differences in beliefs and values. But in all ecumenical relationships Christian churches do their best to respect the diversity in practices and beliefs. I regret the apparent disregard for this understanding.

This concern over ecumenical relationships, it seems obvious to me, distracts from the more important issue, which is the responsibility of those Catholics who were involved in this nonsense. I don't expect Protestants to toe the line when it comes to Church teaching and discipline, but I surely do expect it of those who describe themselves as Catholic.

Any person who claims to have been ordained a Catholic bishop, priest or deacon without the proper authorization from church authorities not only is making a false representation of the facts but also by such an act leaves our church community. We are always saddened when sisters and brothers walk away from us, particularly in this manner. We continue to work and pray for unity in the essentials of our Christian faith and for charity and mutual respect in circumstances where we disagree.

As others, including Jeff Miller, have pointed out, it would have been good and more than a little helpful to clearly state that women cannot be ordained in the Catholic Church. That is the big issue here, not location or proper authorization or what this or that person feels about it. Why is so hard to simply state Catholic doctrine? Again, who or what is being shown the most respect: Jesus and His Church, or someone/something else?

Comments

[M. Jordan Lichens]

Is it me, or is the UCC acting as a tool of disrespect to the wishes of Rome by imposing its agenda on another sect? Could St. Mary's in Mount Angel, Oregon ordain a new pastor for a UCC church? How about Cardinal Stafford naming a new missionary for the Foursquare Church. Of course not, this would be seen as madness and would be compared to Carl declaring himself Archbishop of York, or it would be seen as Rome trying to force itself on everyone else. Anyone in the UCC have a response?

[fr richard]

"Why is so hard to simply state Catholic doctrine?"

Because if an archbishop does this, he would be criticizing this woman, those "Catholics" who were present, the United Church of Christ, and the Episcopal Church. Why should a bishop be expected to proclaim the Faith to his own flock if it's going to make those outside angry? There might be letters to the editor....it might derail ecumenism!!

"Again, who or what is being shown the most respect: Jesus and His Church, or someone/something else?"

I think the archbishop's obviously worried primarily about his own image. Not the opinions of his flock, but rather of those outside the Church. What if they start calling him "meany" or "patriarchal"?

These sad apostates have a lot more guts in all of this than he does.

Standing up for, and clearly teaching the Faith, or worrying about "public relations" and ecumenical relations with people and churches that oppose that Faith. Tough call for a bishop!

[Robert Miller]

The events reported and commented on in this thread superabundantly validate (as if they need validation) Benedict's July initiatives.

The Pope is set on rescuing ecumenism from "dialogue" with organizations that call themselves "churches", claiming a dignity that belongs to Rome and the non-heretical Orthodox communions.

He's set on rescuing liturgical reform from the deformities imposed on it during the last half century.

He's set on rescuing Mariology and the dignity of woman from the "masculinization" of theology that, ironically if inevitably, has arisen from the influence of feminism and the "sexual revolution".

And he's set on liberating theology and faith from enslavement to the self-imposed constraints of the "science" of historical biblical criticism.

What a guy! Of this Pontificate, I'd like to paraphrase (Byron, I think it was): "... to be young then (which I'm not) was very heaven."

What a wonderful time to be a young Catholic. I suspect many vocations will sprout from the seeds Benedict is planting.

Viva il Papa!

[Jackson]

It would be a wonderful thing if such spineless priests were rooted out of the Church.

[Gail]

"Even though Catholics were involved, the claim that it was a Catholic ceremony is wrong but, hopefully, not intentionally disrespectful of a sacrament which we Catholics regard as a precious treasure, one for which we are called to exercise reverent and faithful stewardship."

I took that to mean that the newspaper was not being intentionally disrespectful, but was merely being ignorant in "claiming" that an ordination took place.

Admittedly it is difficult to figure out who the bishop was referring to, but that would make grammatical sense, anyway. It's hard to see any way that the Catholics or the UCC folks involved could NOT be intentionally disrespectful by holding a sham ceremony, but the reporter could be.

[LJ]

It did sound a bit obsequious. I hate to second guess a bishop but perhaps the best course of action would have been a short but simple statement on the lines of;

"For the sake of clarification among the faithful of this diocese and the general public, despite reports and rumours to the contrary no Catholic ordinations took place at the United Church of Christ on ....etc."

Short and to the point.

[dp]

the church needs Female priests! are females unable to perform the same tasks? are they unworthy??

[LJ]

Are you serious dp?

[Dennis Lowe]

I'm a student pastor in the United Church of Christ. We think of ourselves as particularly ecumenical. Contrary to what the current Bishop of Rome thinks, we are a church, and part of the Church, as is the Roman church part of the Church. If what was done at our (fully autonomous, although covenanted) congregation there is troubling you, have you taken it up with them? Under current Roman dogma as those in Rome see it, nothing of substance or moment happened at our congregation. Ignore it.

Or, if you believe them to be empowered to do what they did, recognize it.

[CJ]

LJ:

You certainly do have a lot to learn.
C

[fr richard]

Dear Dennis,

Surely your point about contacting the UCC church that allowed this event is a good one. However such a gesture would only represent the opinions of individuals, not one who holds the authority for the Church in western Oregon. Apparently he is unwilling to do so.

"Under current Roman dogma as those in Rome see it, nothing of substance or moment happened at our congregation. Ignore it."

It is difficult to ignore when the major local media all claim that an "ordination" took place. Unless you believe that the media has no power to influence or confuse people, whether Catholic and non-Catholic, it is important to clearly state the position of the Church regarding women and ordination.

"We think of ourselves as particularly ecumenical."

I don't see how this is an ecumenical gesture on the part of the UCC church involved, at least not in regard to the Catholic Church.

If I know my neighbor has forbidden her teen-aged daughter access to the internet, what does it say about my respect for my neighbor if I invite the daughter over to log onto the web in my house?

Best wishes in your studies.

[M. Jordan Lichens]

Dennis,
Good point about contacting them, but my issue is still that a profound move of disrespect occurred and I have trouble seeing it as ecumenical to consecrate a minister of another sect. As well, I would agree with you about just ignoring it as I don't think we ought to give such insanity too much attention, but again a problem arises when both a major newspaper and a mainstream denomination take it to be valid. If both parties see it fit to tell the world that this ceremony was legitimate, we ought to respond to tell the public the truth.

I appreciate your response and wish you good luck in your studies.

[LJ]

"LJ:

You certainly do have a lot to learn.
C"

Ok, I'll bite.

[LJ]

"I'm a student pastor in the United Church of Christ. We think of ourselves as particularly ecumenical. Contrary to what the current Bishop of Rome thinks, we are a church, and part of the Church, as is the Roman church part of the Church."

Sounds like you missed the same extended period of history that I missed years ago. It is gratifying that you think ecumenically, but is that simply unilateral or does that take into account in any way what the current Bishop of Rome thinks? How about what the Second Vatican Council said in the document Unitatis Redintegratio, Decree on Ecumenism?
From the first paragraph of #11,

"Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded."

By the way, the statement recently expressed by Benedict XVI is only a reiteration of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and John Paul II. I wonder why it is that so many people want to call themselves Catholic as if by declaring it so it will be so. Why not just be part of the real thing?

We still use the term Catholic as it was originally used and has been by everyone until the 16th century, that is, the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

[Elaine]

When both JPII and Benedict worship and pray with every kind of heretic and scismatic and both have expressed "honor and respect" for these blasphemies and sacrilieges against our Lord God, how can you question Archbishop Vlazny's statement?

The only religion that JPII and Benedict refuse(d) to honor and respect is the Roman Catholic religion which they have abandoned and derided with gusto.

[Carl Olson]

The only religion that JPII and Benedict refuse(d) to honor and respect is the Roman Catholic religion which they have abandoned and derided with gusto.

Spoken with the fervor of someone who is passionately ignorant and proud of it. Sad.

[Kathleen]

If our bishops are like this in the green wood, what will they do in the dry?

[Neil McKenty]

It seems curious so much fuss is being made about a so-called Catholic ordination. The fact is it's only a question of time until women will be ordained in the Roman Catholic church. I have not met a single reputable Catholic Scripture scholar who thinks Rome's arguments from Scripture on the women's ordination issue are persuasive.

Lighten up folks. Soon we'll have ordinations of Catholic women, the real thing.

[Dennis Lowe]

I think more than profound disrespect, this congregation's action might speak of profound disagreement. In the United Church of Christ, ordination is not viewed in the same way as in the Roman church. Most obviously, ordination is not a sacrament. We only have two, the Lord's Supper and baptism. Marriage is not a sacrament, neither are "holy orders", nor the others. Those acts, and many others, can be sacramental in nature, but we don't view them as sacraments. We have profoundly different views on this and other subjects, hence our "divorce" from you 500 years ago. And yet, we agree on the most basic tenets of the face, certainly the two commandments Jesus gave us, and the Great Commission. Don't confuse what a single United Church of Christ did with denominational action. We ordained an openly gay man over 30 years ago (also the first black, and the first woman, much longer ago than that) because a single congregation called that person, and an association of 30 to 60 or so churches agreed to respect that decision. We do all manner of things you don't agree with, not to hurt you, but because we believe in what we're doing.

[Tony]

It seems curious so much fuss is being made about a so-called Catholic ordination.

Me too. I "played priest" with Necco wafers and a blanket for vestments when I was 6 years old. The newspaper never covered the "6 year old boy ordained Catholic priest" story. My parents just smiled politely and nodded... "How cute!".

That's what I think of the "red poncho ladies". Oh how cute! Look at those adult ladies "playing priest".

The fact is it's only a question of time until women will be ordained in the Roman Catholic church.

Don't count on it. A male priesthood is irreformable dogma (regardless of whatever our separated bretheren might think).

I have not met a single reputable Catholic Scripture scholar who thinks Rome's arguments from Scripture on the women's ordination issue are persuasive.

We don't just have Scripture, we have the other wing of the Holy Spirit, which is holy tradition.

Lighten up folks. Soon we'll have ordinations of Catholic women, the real thing.

Since women are invalid matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders, I'll expect to see womynpriests as soon as I see the Pope consecrate Oreos and milk into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

[Elaine]

Ignorant and proud of it?

No proud to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church which still believes and practices the true faith.

[Tina]

There's nothing more pitful than wannabe "Catholics".