Funniest line of the day: "We were excommunicated in 2008, but we rejected it..."

Yet another "Praise the Priestettes!" piece, this time in the New York Times:

While other little girls in her hometown of Nissoria, Sicily, were dressing up and playing house, Maria Vittoria Longhitano would pretend to say Mass, dispensing cookies and chips to her toys for communion. Sometimes, she would even baptize her dolls.

As a child, she prayed to St. Rita — much venerated in Sicily — asking for her intervention to become a priest.

But the Roman Catholic Church has no place for women among its clerical ranks, as the Vatican stated forcefully over the summer when it decreed that the attempt to ordain female priests is to be considered one of the most serious crimes against church law.

In related news, the Seattle Storm basketball team has no place for me—an early (yes, early!) middle-aged, rather out-of-shape guy with a passable jump shot but no hops—despite the fact I played basketball constantly into my early twenties and could surely hold my own in the WNBA for a few moments with a little training, conditioning, and sensitivity training. The analogy limps, of course, and not just because I have bad knees; there are all sorts of theological issues involved in the Catholic (and Orthodox! Let's not forget that fact) belief that women cannot be ordained. We've gone over this stuff a billion times before; my interest here is in the humor and "logic" of the dissenters—not intentional humor, by certainly real humor:

“We were excommunicated in 2008, but we rejected it,” said Bridget Mary Meehan, a spokeswoman for the Roman Catholic Womenpriests organization, who was ordained a priest in 2006 without Vatican consent. “What matters is that we follow our conscience.”

This must be what it's like to be trapped walking eternally on Escher's famous staircase:

• The priestette's demand that their "ordinations" be recognized by the Church and they be accepted as Catholic priests. Put another way, they want the blessing and backing of the Church and her authority.

• When excommunicated for knowingly violating Church law in a grave manner, said preistettes brazenly "reject" the law and acts of the Church.

• They say their conscience is supreme without qualification, which is directly contrary to clear Church teaching, which describes their position as a "mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience" and a "rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching" (CCC, par. 1792; see this post for much more).

• If their conscience is supreme, without qualification, it logically must have greater authority than the Church, which means 1) they have no need for the Church (so why do they seek the Church's approval?) and/or 2) the Church's authority is seriously flawed, even morally bankrupt, which also begs the question: why bother to be recognized and accepted by such an institution?

• Put simply, these priestettes go on and on about their desire and need to be a Catholic priest, yet always demean and even denounce the authority upon which the priesthood rests. If they can indeed "reject" Magisterial authority, that same authority is, logically, powerless to ordain them in any real and meaningful way. This is akin to Dan Brown's claim that Jesus was a simple carpenter who had, by virtue of some unknown quality, power over his goddess wife, Mary Magdalene. Right. And I have a bridge in southern Utah that you should buy.

Which means one or more of the following:

1. They are theologically ignorant. ("Here is the badge of heresy," wrote Blessed Cardinal Newman, "its dogmas are unfruitful; it has no theology.")

2. They view the Church primarily in terms of human authority and position, not as a divine institution founded by Christ for a specific end, with certain functions and roles established by Christ within the Church for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls.

3. They act in bad faith, or lack real faith. This is evidenced in their dismissal of Magisterial teaching; it is the "Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error" (CCC, par. 890).

4. They are immature, attention-seeking, delusional, and narcissistic, with no demonstrable love or concern for the Church, her teachings, and her mission. Like the Pharisees, they demand attention and recognition, claiming they have a superior ability to know, interpret, and live the law. Yet they lack the gravitas of the Pharisees; there is a self-absorbed flippancy to these priestettes that is both sad and sickening.

None of that, of course, is humorous in the least. But the priestette movement, although small and aging, represents quite well how the idolatry of personal ambitions can so easily distort a healthy conscience. It is, I think, a symptom of a deeper problem: pride, surely, but also a renunciation of the Mystical Body of Christ, which in turn is a renunciation of Christ himself. By demanding to be persona Christi, they risk losing communion with Christ altogether.

UPDATE: Yet another example (this time within the Archdiocese of Portland) of priestette egotism: "A Sunday Without Women" (ht: Mel).

• "I am a pro-adultery Catholic because my Catholic faith tells me I can be." (March 2, 2009)
• "Our personal conscience is supreme" (Feb. 7, 2007)
• The Truth About Conscience | John F. Kippley
• Happiness and the Heart | Fr. Robert J. Spitzer
• Conscience and Chaos | Dr. James Hitchcock
• The Illusion of Freedom Separated from Moral Virtue | Raymond L. Dennehy

Comments

[Bryan]

It kind of reminds me of that Seinfeld episode when George tried to break it off with his girlfriend and she rejected the break up and decided to keep seeing him anyway. Both are so funny.

[Alana LaPerle]

I loved the reference in the article to Longhitano pretending "to say Mass, dispensing cookies and chips to her toys for communion. Sometimes, she would even baptize her dolls." I, too, formed fresh bread into "hosts" and played "Church" with my siblings, but I NEVER mistook this child-play for an adult vocation. As St. Paul said "When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man (adult), I put aside childish things" (1 Cor 13:11). It never ceases to amaze me how many people continue to balance their adult beliefs -- including rejection of a white-bearded-old-man-in-the-sky "god" -- on the shakey foundations of a pre age-of-reason eight year old.

[Margaret Yo]

Am in agreement for the most part.

Only problem is with the use of the term "priestettes', and the attitude following from it. (Not funny.) I find it demeaning and distracting of legitimate points being made. I may disagree with the actions and ideas of others, but I believe it is required of all of us to be respectful in our words and deeds in the expression of our differences of opinion and belief.

I believe it is possible to make the same points without the personal derision. It would be a stronger argument and one that I would respect.

[JP]

@ Margaret

If not 'priestette', then what? We can't call them priests. "Priest wannabe" is really no better than priestette.

I suspect they'd have a problem with simply 'delusional', 'disobedient', or 'mistaken' too.

Calling the women simply by their names does not make the connection directly to the error they are committing. Neither would 'sinner' be specific enough.

I think 'priestette' gets the point across. If they have a problem with it, they can reject the term along with all the Catholic teaching they they don't like.

[Carl E. Olson]

LJ: Exactly right, thank you.

Margaret: What "attitude"? Critical? Well, yes, of course! But how, exactly, is it "demeaning"--especially when the women who seek "ordination" as Catholic priests do so with a hubristic disregard for Church teaching that is truly insulting to real Catholics and to the sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ.

In fact, I came up with the term "priestette" (I'm not aware of prior use, but may have missed it; as best I can tell, my first use of it was in a blog post titled, "PRIESTETTES! PRIESTETTES! GET YOUR PRIESTETTES HERE!", posted on February 10/2003, on the Envoy Encore blog) precisely because it is an accurate term. Consider that the suffix "-ette" can mean or imply the following:

• A smaller form of something. And, indeed, the "ordination" of women as Catholic priests is a small attempt to be or accomplish something that cannot actually exist.

• The female equivalent of something. Ditto. Fairly self-evident.

• An imitation or substitute of something. Bingo! This is actually the primary focus of the term "priestette"--the imitative quality that speaks to a lack of knowledge, or humility, or maturity. Or all three, as is often the case.

[Melanie]

After reading this, I went on a link chase after reading this: "They say their conscience is supreme without qualification, which is directly contrary to clear Church teaching, which describes their position as a "mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience" and a "rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching" (CCC, par. 1792; see this post for much more).
" (this post being the one by Miss Graham about being a "pro-choice" Catholic), mainly to get a feel for what was behind Miss Graham's conclusion, her motivation. her argument was not of a philosophical nature at all but was a predictable characterization of someone whom the Bible tells us to "...have nothing to do with them." Not only does she want abortion, but she wants women priests and supports homosexuality. Unsurprising, but nevertheless warrants keeping away from her. I can find nothing in her impassioned and faulty plea that smacks of compassion or courage. Women who get abortions do not do so out of courage. They do so out of fear. And when people are afraid, they are not going to think, they are going to act. And they will want anyone and everyone to help them do what their desperation is telling them to do, desperation that is most definitely not coming from any godly trained conscience, not from the Holy Spirit. You help those in need of your help...but not by joining them in their sin. But some people, like Miss Graham, don't want you and I to have that choice. Apparently, only she gets to make choices so that you and I don't get to exercise our godly trained conscience. It
's always a disguise of the "you don't love me" refrain but Jesus would. That's the sticking point with this movement that not only wants to sin itself, but wants you and I to sin with them by joining in that sin. That's not just the person speaking, that's the enemy speaking through them. Such people like Graham want to be sly with the scripture to expect others to be "charitable" with philosophical argument. But our Lord gave us the example in such cases when even He did not embroil himself in a debate with the Devil but merely prefaced His replies with:"It is written..." The Devil has no response to that direct refutation. And that is what a servant of God needs to discern not Miss Graham's all to familiar and misappropriated use of the word "discernment".

[Matthew]

Carl:
Regarding the origin of the word 'priestette', I think I remember Manfred Hauke considering the term in the preface to his magisterial work "Women in the Priesthood?". He did wind up choosing to use "women priests" as opposed to "priestettes".

[David Deavell]

Did any one see the hilarious Time Magazine article on the growing movement of priestesses (is this better) leading break-off Catholic parishes? One group in Ft. Myers, FL had 25 people in their congregation and one in San Diego had about 150. And this was "evidence" for an unstoppable movement. Given the picture of the Ft. Myers choir, I'd say it might be a fairly strong movement in certain nursing homes.

[LJ]

• If their conscience is supreme, without qualification, it logically must have greater authority than the Church, which means 1) they have no need for the Church (so why do they seek the Church's approval?) and/or 2) the Church's authority is seriously flawed, even morally bankrupt, which also begs the question: why bother to be recognized and accepted by such an institution?

Precisely the questions I've always asked. It seems to me they have not only rejected authority, they have rejected reason. By their statements and actions they appear to be saying they have discovered the round square.

The only rational explanation I can come up with is that this is a strategy aimed at intimidation, a test of the wills perhaps, in the hope that those they believe have the authority to change the male-only priesthood will eventually cave in.

Which all simply shows what you have pointed out once again Carl, they really don't understand what the Church is, nor her relationship to Christ. And perhaps they really don't understand who Christ is either. If they did, you would think they would stop fighting against him.