On yesterday's Democracy Now they interviewed Father Roy Bourgeois. He has been a staunch (and vocal) opponent of the Army's School of the Americas as well as the Iraq war. Now, the Catholic church wasn't thrilled with that, but it wasn't until he showed support for women that they really freaked out.
He has spoken out in favor of allowing women to be ordained as Catholic priests. Because of this, the Vatican is threatening to excommunicate him if he doesn't recant his beliefs.
This is my favorite quote from the interview:
"But what we have here, at its very core, is the sin of sexism. And like racism, no matter how hard we try to justify it or bring in, you know, God to bless discrimination, in the end it is always immoral."
Now, I'm no fan of Catholicism (or religion in general). I went to Catholic chirch as a child and it's definitely not for me. Pope Benedict has only made things worse - going even farther to take away women's rights and focusing less on the humanity aspect of religion than John Paul II did. But I feel that if a woman wants to be a priest, that should be her right.
No one should be denied their right to exercise their religious beliefs because of their gender. As long as they aren't hurting themselves or others, no one should be denied their religion for any reason. And if someone feels called to become a priest, that's what they should be.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Priest Threatened with Excommunication for Supporting Women.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10582
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
This sentiment feels a little wrong to me. Women are free to practice their religious beliefs. Part of the Catholic religious belief is that Women cannot be priests. It's like arguing that everyone should be able to play football how they want to, and therefore the NFL has no right to decide what players can and cannot do on the football field.
You are just joining a private organization with it's own arbitrary set of rules. You don't have any "right" to change the rules that that organization sets, because it's a completely voluntary activity.
Except for the fact that nowhere in scripture does it say that women can't be priests. It's something that the Vatican decided at some point, and if you follow their beliefs, man's law doesn't trump God's.
The Bible doesn't really say anything about priests anyway, as they have to do with the New Testament church. The idea that women cannot hold positions of authority over men comes from a single verse in the Pauline Epistles, with perhaps one other there and in a Petrine Epistle that have to do with women submitting or whatever.
Tradition seems to have gotten the best of the church in this regard. If you study the original Greek passages (even if you cast aside all-important cultural and linguistic context) it's STILL really difficult to say, "this is how it is". We just don't have enough information to say, for sure, what those verses mean. It could go one way, and it could just as easily go the other. We don't know for sure what some of the words meant at that period in time and we don't know for sure whether the figurative part meant one thing or another (though apparently, historical evidence is in women's favor on that one). We don't even know entirely if the letter (which was intended for and sent to just one place) was meant to address a single issue in a single church or in all churches in all cases.
So, as a devout Christian who is a Christian first (even before being a feminist) I am just so tired of hearing it preached like God brought these rules down on stone tablets. The information is just not there for us to say so.
I understand that the Catholic church doesn't base all of its beliefs solely on scripture though, so maybe it has something to do with their Church tradition. Protestants though, yeah, they don't have an excuse.
You don't need to convince me that Catholics believe all sorts of screwy things with no evidence that frequently contradict each other. I'm certainly not going to argue.
My point is that you can't just go in and correct everything that you feel they've misinterpreted. Their decision who can be a priest is just something they've decided. It is not for other people to force religions to interpret their religion a particular way.
I am a Catholic woman who will likely become Episcopalian, due to the fact I wish to be a priest. There are many good arguments for female ordination, and having done my research, I believe they're more valid than those against it.
However:
"No one should be denied their right to exercise their religious beliefs because of their gender. As long as they aren't hurting themselves or others, no one should be denied their religion for any reason."
I agree with this, but saying that's what's done by not allowing women to be ordained is entirely inaccurate.
One thing you must understand is that Catholicism trusts both Scripture and Tradition; capital T, sacred Tradition, things not in the Bible specifically but that are considered just as true. That's why we have seven sacraments; it doesn't mention seven in the Bible, but they have been formed based on the wisdom.
The trick comes in finding out what's Tradition--truth, and sacred--and what's just tradition, which isn't a good enough reason on its own to forbid something.
You are entirely free to practice your religious beliefs, no matter your gender, even in Catholicism; there's a difference between that and not being allowed to take certain offices within the church structure.
I think especially in something as serious as this it is important to approach it from the most accurate point of view; if it sounds rude, I apologize.
Shameless self promotion Johanna - I wrote a short piece about Fr. Roy's impending excommunication. Here it is.
So thanks for posting this. :)
And doubleb, as a lifelong Catholic and feminist, I must disagree with you. Sexism (and heterosexism, for that matter), wherever one finds it, IS immoral. The Catholic church exerts a huge amount of power in the world, especially in regards to women's health and reproductive rights. The institutional sexism of the Church is laid bare in its obstinate refusal to even entertain the question of ordaining women.
While I understand where the logic of "if you don't like the religion, why don't you leave," and believe me, I've tried multiple times, I just can't. My spiritual practice has become an important part of who I am, and I can't just walk away from it. And because I stay, I am absolutely obligated to be a voice for equality and justice in the Church. Without individuals both inside and outside the church demanding change, it will persist in its discriminatory, anti-woman, and un-Christian ways. And I can't sit by and let that happen.
As far as I am concerned, Catholic women absolutely have the right to answer their call to ordained ministry. I thank Fr. Roy for his refusal to back down on this issue.
I agree with most of what you say. I'm a little more apathetic toward the issue because I think religion itself is ridiculous. To me it's like a person sitting on a chair full of nails trying really hard to get one removed so they won't be as uncomfortable. Just get out of the chair.
It is sexism. It is immoral. I have no problem with people fighting it. I can't agree that it's a "right" in the same way we talk about a lot of other rights because private organizations like church's have the right organize themselves however they see fit. To be fair, most people don't think about it like a club, but as an atheist that's all it looks like to me. And honestly, if you believe all the things you claim to believe as a Catholic, this seems like even less of a good idea. The way I understand it... the Pope says no. God speaks through the Pope. No dice. But I don't claim to be an expert on Catholicism.
The beliefs of Catholicism and teachings on the role of the Pope are much MUCH more nuanced than your understanding, but if that has been your understanding of the Catholic Church and the role of the Pope, I much more clearly understand where you are coming from.
However, (and I'll try to be brief and avoid going down any theological rabbit holes) a) just because the Pope says something doesn't mean it is the word of God or even infallible teachings, and b) the church's teaching on women's ordination (and ordination in general) has changed and been greatly restricted over the course of history, so it's in no way written in stone.
Something that took me awhile to learn about Catholicism (also not a Catholic, so any practicing Catholic, please correct me.) is that papal infallibility doesn't mean that whatever the Pope says/does is the word of God. The Pope has to make a specific decree that whatever statement he is making is infallible, and they don't do that very often. The every day things the Pope does, or decisions he makes regarding the Church aren't necessarily considered to be actions directly sanctioned by God. So, a Pope can be wrong, and it doesn't say anything about God.
"To me it's like a person sitting on a chair full of nails trying really hard to get one removed so they won't be as uncomfortable. Just get out of the chair."
I really have to agree with this, but, as we are both atheists, I can see why we would be of the same mind. When I read that the Bible says that slavery is okay, that women should be inferior to men and never have a position of power over them, that God wanted a man killed for collecting wood for a fire on the Sabbath, I thought there was something wrong with the religion itself. I didn't feel a need to change it from the inside, because the problems are right there in the book that is supposed to be the unquestioned Word of God. I too, like Anne, was raised in church. I was forced to go to church long after I had read the most misogynistic parts of the Bible and seen the hypocrisy of every day Christians. But I have a choice now. I have used my choice to leave organized religion altogether. I can't think of a single Christian denomination that doesn't espouse some form of misogyny. Catholicism is right up there with Mormonism on the "misogynistic religion" bandwagon. The Catholic church is the one pushing for total abortion bans in South America countries that leave women dying of ectopic pregnancies. I really, really don't see how feminism and misogynistic organized religion mix. And I've been seeing a lot of discussion on the boards about this in the past week or so.
So, how do you deal with the misogyny in the Bible, and the misogyny of the leaders of the church, and the misogyny of most of its members? Why would you not leave a faith where 99.9% of the leaders think women are less than? I don't understand it, but I don't understand it because inconsistencies with religion drove me to throw off the oppressive coils my mother raised me with. I don't need them, and I'm a much happier person without them. I guess some people are much happier with religion than without it.
(Sorry if this is a mean post, I think I am being kind of a jerk. I guess I still have some residual anger about the things I saw in religion)
not a Catholic, so any practicing Catholic, please correct me.) is that papal infallibility doesn't mean that whatever the Pope says/does is the word of God. The Pope has to make a specific decree that whatever statement he is making is infallible, and they don't do that very often. The every day things the Pope does, or decisions he makes regarding the Church aren't necessarily considered to be actions directly sanctioned by God. So, a Pope can be wrong, and it doesn't say anything about God.
Yep, that's correct. There are a grand total of three uses of the doctrine in the entire history of the Church: the creation of the doctrine (19th century, Vatican I, bad idea IMO), plus two other doctrines originating in the 19th century that most Catholics aren't even aware of: immaculate conception (that Mary was conceived with no original sin in her soul) and the assumption of the Virgin (that Mary didn't die but was taken bodily to heaven - there are about three Catholics who even know they're supposed to believe this).
I'm... Not so great when it comes to expression, but I just wanted to attempt a reply.
I don't know about you, but it really bothers me when I hear people saying, "love it or leave it" about my country. Yes, America has flaws, and I am more than willing to point a few out, but this doesn't mean that I should pack up and get out just because it isn't perfect. It just means that things need to be discussed and hopefully improved upon.
Well, that's the bases of a lot of feminist criticism, isn't it? Not to take a good, hard look at the inequalities and bigotry in the world and say, "no, this isn't right at all, so I'm just going to give up on the whole idea". I think that believing in feminism, you must believe at some level that the statues of society can be changed. And if you do believe that, than you must have some respect for those willing to do so. Why, then, would it be so difficult to understand that someone would sit in that chair full of needles and try plucking on out at a time? Because if that is the metaphor we're using than, trust me, as a Catholic and a feminist and as many, many more little subgroups I am sitting in far more than one chair and just getting up from the one will not change anything. The chair is still there, all the needles still in place. But if I decide to work towards change, even if the solution seems to be out of reach at the moment, to me that is by far the more sensible thing to do.
Again, I'm lousy at explaining myself, but between this and a few other religious threads I've seen here recently, I thought I might try. When it's other issues, say same-sex marriage, there aren't threads saying how ridiculous protesters trying to revoke the passing of prop 8 or equally discriminating legalization are that they're trying to change an immoral, bigoted society instead of just leaving it. Because it's understood in such cases that just giving in will only solidify the culture of hate. So why then if a woman decides to stay in a religion (knowing it is imperfect and knowing that it needs change) is she foolish or blind or any of the other things said (not necessarily by you, just what I have seen in various threads)? Why are some things worth the fight while others should just be abandoned? And, really, if we could change even one of these things, wouldn't that help to improve the lives of hundreds? And maybe help other, equally just causes as well?
I'm not sure, it could be the early hours and far too much school-piled-on-work, but I make sense to myself when I say those things. So hopefully it works in type, too.
One must live in some country. That's not even an option. The decision just becomes which country, and that frequently isn't even a decision because moving from country to country is obviously not easy.
No one needs a religion. And leaving one is as easy as simply deciding in an instant that you're done with it.
I also have the background assumptions that countries are better than anarchy, but religion is not better than atheism. In my view, religion itself promotes intolerance and ignorance, so I'm always going to be in favor of leaving that chair for a plethora of reasons. Bigotry within the organization is just another reason.
I realize that religion is deeply important to many people, and I realize that it can be very difficult to let those things go, but if I'm want to say in a serious way that adults are responsible for their own decisions then I'm going to have to include women who are free to think for themselves and make their own decisions in this regard.
The problem, doubleb, is that for someone who's had a religious experience -- not just "well, this is how I was raised" but "I felt the touch of the Divine, and I'm doing my best to honour that" -- asking them to remove their faith is like asking them to remove their capacity to perceive the colour blue. Or the memory of their parents. Or something to that effect. Not being a religious person myself, I'm not sure what simile would be best.
Actually, doubleb, being part of a religion isn't a voluntary activity unless you convert as an older teen or adult.
I was born into a catholic family. I didn't have a choice. A few days after I was born, I was baptized into the religion like all babies born to practicing catholic families. I was forced to go to church and Sunday school against my will as a child and throughout my teenage years. I had absolutely no say in the catholic grade school and high school my parents sent me to. I was born into the catholic community and until I was old enough to make decisions for myself, I couldn't leave it.
Unlike me, many women grow up fully believing and loving their religious communities so they don't want to leave them. For many people, it's all they know. Some people feel like they can't leave even when they're adults for whatever reason.
Your analogy of everyone playing how they want in the NFL doesn't fly with this. I don't think you quite get the difference. Women priests wouldn't be doing whatever they want regardless of the rules. They'd follow the same rules and protocol as the men if they were ever allowed to be in the same position. They just want the opportunity to have the same positions.
Yes, I only mean adults when I talk about choice. Parents can force their children to wear only green cloths or do all sorts of ridiculous things. As far as I'm concerned being baptized is meaningless. Sorry you were forced to go to church, but lots of kids are forced to do things. Adults are still free to make their own choices. And none of this is really related to making a private organization do things they don't want to.
As far as the NFL example. You're saying lets let women play, but keep all the other rules the same. That's still changing a rule. Just because you only change one and the others stay the same doesn't mean you didn't change a rule. Right now, rule says no women priests. You want to change that rule.
If the Pope tomorrow says that Catholics have to wear green all the time, and anyone not wearing green is kicked out, Catholics can totally do that.
I disagree with you regarding your belief that "if a woman wants to be a priest, that should be her right" -- in context. Sure, she can be a priest somewhere, but I don't think simple desire grants anyone any basic right to be ordained into a Church that won't have him or her, whether she is female, he refuses a vow of celibacy, or what. And the Church's refusal to ordain a woman isn't exactly a refusal to let her exercise her religious beliefs as your post implies; rather, it puts positions of religious power and leadership out of her reach.
But more power to Fr. Bourgeois for his pressing the issue. He is far from alone in his conviction, and a handful of nuns have spoken with me candidly before and wagered that the Church must open the priesthood to women within their lifetime. Given the shortage of priests I don't think that's altogether unlikely.
Critical mass on this issue can eventually be reached, and agitation not only within the laity but within the clergy for the ordination of women can only be a step in the right direction. Of course there will be a backlash from the Vatican. I think that only underscores the strength of feeling, though.
Oh, also, I'm curious as to your meaning here: "Pope Benedict has only made things worse - going even farther to take away women's rights and focusing less on the humanity aspect of religion than John Paul II did." In what sense do you mean, on both fronts?
Now, I won't pretend to know absolutely everything about either pope. But it's always been my understanding that JP2 cared more about human rights issues and the suffering of the impoverished. And it seems to me that Benedict has put restriction of reproductive rights higher on his to-do list than his predecessor.
But it could also simply be my perspective, since before JP2 died I was still young enough to not pay attention to what he was doing politically. Also, I was writing my post quickly at my internship (where I was listening to Democracy Now while working) so it may not have come out clearly.
Also, I think that if someone's religious beliefs are leading them to pursue a position of leadership, that is part of practicing their religion. Fr Bourgeois talked about feeling that he had been "called" to become a priest. If a woman felt the same way, she wouldn't be able to become one and would instead have to become a nun or ignore the call. To me that's restricting her from practicing her religion in the way she wants.
I don't think she should automatically become a priest just by wanting to. She should go through the exact same process as men who choose that path.
Actually, Benedict is the one of the two who has been willing to consider the possibility of condom-use for those infected with HIV/AIDS. It doesn't sound like much, but it's a huge step. (I don't personally like the man either, but it's one of the few things he's done I approve of.)
I'm not a fan of organized religion either but my understanding is that churches have historically gone through similar "radical" changes as they attempt to keep up with the times. So what's the difference here? Nothing.
The church can split, reform or keep losing membership. It's as simple as that. Furthermore, it may be hard for some people to quit the church altogether, but it doesn't seem as difficult to convert to similar yet less restrictive denominations or religions.
For example when faced with systemic and intergenerational discrimination some lower caste Hindus are converting to Buddhism.
Just sayin'
"He has been a staunch (and vocal) opponent of the Army's School of the Americas as well as the Iraq war. Now, the Catholic church wasn't thrilled with that, but it wasn't until he showed support for women that they really freaked out."
Wait...I could've sworn Pope John Paul II was very against the Iraq war. Why wouldn't they be thrilled with one of the priests against it?
This is correct. JPII was very against the Iraq War. I google briefly to find a source to quote, rather than just state this and leave it there:
http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/iraqwar.htm
"The most public and serious condemnations of the invasion of Iraq came from Pope John Paul II and other top officials at the Vatican. Catholic leaders did as much as they could to dissuade Britain and America from their bellicose course of action, but to no avail. Conservative Catholics in America did as much as they could to convince the Vatican and Pope John Paul II that the invasion was not only morally licit, but also a very good idea. They, too, failed."
I was raised Catholic and am a confirmed Catholic (though I'm not practicing anymore 'cause it's bullshit), and what I find hilarious about the woman-priest scare is that the church has been suffering shortages of priests and declining interest in priesthood (unsurprisingly) for the past couple decades. Here they have an opportunity for their faith to not commit religious suicide, and they STILL can't stand woman leaders so much that they would rather allow the whole frickin' church to slip into obscurity and irrelevancy than allow women to lead.
I'm sorry. If a woman can be celibate, and I know they can - nuns have been doing it for centuries - then they can be a Catholic priest. Women have been the backbone of various churches in this country (and others) forever and used religious theology to argue for human rights (ending slavery) and even women's rights. While I can't stand religion, women should be given their due in the churches that would have languished without them.
I'm thrilled to see male priests agitating for this.
This conversation is an interesting read.
The status of women in the church has nothing to do with the substance of Catholicism. If the church can accept that Genesis is not to be taken literally, then it can change it's stance on one ambiguous verse from an epistle.
I'd like to agree with those who say that religion is not such an easy thing to walk away from. I do not think that Catholicism can be likened to a private club at all, not with it's power and influence. For a lot of people it's very much intertwined with their cultural identity, and their life as a member of their community. I could walk away from being (Eastern Rite) Catholic as much as I could walk away from being Ukrainian.
Maybe I'm not saying this in a fundamentally correct way. You're talking about freedom to practice religious beliefs.
Catholicism is nothing except the beliefs that make up Catholicism.
If a woman wants to be a Catholic priest, she is specifically not practicing Catholicism, because part of Catholicism is the belief that women can't be priests. She's making up a new religion, and then trying to get that forced into Catholicism.
I frankly don't care either way. I think it's hilarious whenever the church has to change it's fundamental stance.
I'm probably just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Actually I'm arguing that women should be able to practice in any way they want - which includes climbing the ladder of leadership. Because that's how some people need or want to operate. As I have said in previous comments.
I've also said that I wrote this really fast between writing other things at my internship yesterday. And if it didn't come out clearly, I apologize, but I've re-explained it in comments.
And churches do undergo changes. Especially when membership is dwindling.
I completely agree.
Liza said: "Nowhere in scripture does it say that women can't be priests."
A good portion of Catholic doctrine is not found in scripture. If people want to be members of a denomination whose doctrine doesn't stray from scripture, they shouldn't be Catholics.
Catholic doctrine, as has been pointed out here, is pretty inherently sexist (and homophobic, not surprisingly).
I just wish people would stop defending the Catholic Church so much, and that the Church would open itself to... you know... some sort of progressive ideology.
I've grown up Catholic, and while I am no longer practicing I can say that after 9 years in a Catholic school I'm fairly versed in church history and all that. People get their noses out of joint about this women want to be priests but my question is why...Jesus had women disciples that were to go out and preach. There were 12 apostles they say, but according to whom? The Bible...
the Bible is a book written thousands of years ago and it was edited so many times it is impossible to know what exactly it said at the beginning. The evangelists? The did not write anything everything was through word of mouth...until much much later when it was finally written down.
The church through various ecumenical councils have time and time again decided to add and subtract from the Bible...and can I just add that most of the Bible if not all (I don't flat out say all because I can't know it for certain) was wrtten and edited by men...men of power...the Bible is not a history book, and I don't think that it should ever be taken as one.
So the argument (getting back to my point) that Jesus was a man and the Bible says so...I think it is bullshit...at one time priests were allowed to marry, but they changed that not for any other reason than the church was losing money and land because the priests would leave their land and money to their families...it had nothing to do with sacrificing for God it was about the bottom line...
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with religion, spirituality, or any other belief system, but the problem comes in when people beging to use these things as an excuse not to think. To make decisions based on what the _____ says...that is dangerous and stupid. Women who love God and want to commit themselves to God through the Catholic religion should gain that right, and a nun is no where near the same amount of power in the Catholic church (although the nuns I knew were...powerful) If priests want to marry (and that includes same sex marriage should the country ever get around to stop being such bigots) they should have that right. Mother Superior said it best in The Sound of Music "Just because you love him (the captain) does not mean you love God less"
So the argument (getting back to my point) that Jesus was a man and the Bible says so...I think it is bullshit...
Oh, I love you for this! It reminds me of one of my favourite quotes - from Sojourner Truth's "Ain't I a Woman" - "Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him."
Sadly, years have gone by since then, and though society moved a little further away from racism and sexism, it's so starkly clear that the move hasn't been far away enough.
Having been raised by Catholic and Quaker parents and still practicing today (until I have kids, I am going to rabblerouse from within), I must start with a quibble:
While it may be possible that the Church disagreed with some of Fr. Roy's methods of opposing the SOA, they are in no way against the idea of closing down the SOA. Many of the people killed by SOA graduates were Catholic priests and nuns. And the Church is on record as against the war in Iraq. There is Catholic social teaching that should be celebrated, even as we condemn those teachings that are sexist and homophobic. Catholicism is capable of change (see Vatican II), but if people refuse to understand that which they criticize, we aren't going to get anywhere.
That being said, I am so proud of Fr. Roy for this principled stance on the ordination of women. The letter that he wrote back to the Vatican is a thing of beauty.
The purpose of a priest is to lead the two parts of the Mass: liturgy of the Word (readings, etc.) and the liturgy of the Eucharist (communion). Mary Magdalene is told directly by Christ to spread the news of his rising (John 20:17), and the first celebrations of the Eucharist after the death of Christ were done in people's homes and were led by women (it is the preparation of a meal, after all).
Saint Teresa of Avila, one of the doctors of the Church, felt a vocation to the priesthood. This vocation is explained away by most Catholic theologians, but her own words clearly portray a yearning that breaks my heart:
How terrible that she didn't even get the chance to humble herself by refusing the priesthood because the Church had already refused that vocation.
All of you who are saying "Just leave the Church!" are ignoring something *huge.*
The Catholic Church is an enormously powerful institution. If you live in America or most English-speaking countries, it may be hard to see, because except for Ireland most English-speaking countries aren't particularly Catholic. But in places such as Italy and the entire Southern Hemisphere, Catholicism is *extremely* powerful.
The Catholic Church practices institutionalized misogyny that treats women horrifically, promoting, for example, that women die in ectopic pregnancies rather than abort pregnancies that can't live in the first place, and part of the *reason* for this is that everyone who makes rules for the Church is a celibate man. Not only are they male, but because they're celibate, they have far fewer loving relations with women than the average man. They still have mothers and sisters, but they have no wives or girlfriends, and no daughters. (If they do have girlfriends, they are deeply ashamed of them, because they took a vow not to have one, and they feel they are sinning every time they see her.) For this reason they are *more* misogynistic than the average man... they are soaking in a misogynistic culture without even the counterbalancing of a wife or a daughter to love.
Women can be misogynists too, but women are much more likely to support women than men who have no close relations with women, statistically. Having female priests in the Catholic Church would work toward ending, or ameliorating, the Church's institutionalized misogyny. And remember, millions of women are forced to live with the policies of the Church whether they are believers or not, because the Church has a profound influence on their countries. Hell, even here in America, the Church screws up lives for women by owning thousands of hospitals where women are not allowed EC or birth control pills and the health of the mother is not prioritized over the life of an unborn baby. Women have died, in America, because they made the mistake of going to a Catholic hospital for their pregnancy, because it was close to their home, and the Catholics thought it was more important to get her baby born and baptized than it was to save her life.
Thus, the work of committed Catholic feminists to agitate for the ordination of female priests, and supporting the work of the few priests who agree that the priesthood should be open for women, is very important for international women's rights, and telling individual women "Just leave the Church if you don't like it" does nothing to help the women dying of illegal abortions or pregnancies gone wrong in South America or Poland.
Alara Rogers -
As a former devout Catholic, I fail to see how progressive women staying in the Catholic Church helps women in South America or Poland - and I say that as someone who used to belong to a bunch of progressive Catholic groups.
If anything, staying in the Catholic church only gives the church the power as it measures it - members, and money. Less members = less influence and power. I think that leaving the church shows women that there are other ways of living besides retaining a connection to that sexist institution.
Whether or not I left the church won't make a difference to a woman in El Salvador or Poland. I just don't see how progressives in say, the USA have any influence over the experience of women in places like that, compared to the local hierarchy.
That being said, I know many progressive women and men who are very committed Catholics who manage that balance, and who bravely speak out for equality for women in the church. I think in large part they're spitting into the wind, but if they think it'll improve the church in the long run, more power to them.
When I was making a last gasp at Catholicism (it *is* hard to give up when your family is from Belfast...), I learned that the church has plans to let priests (the ones with penises) marry as a way to get more takers. They would *much* rather change that rule than the one that says women must remain powerless. Cultural pressure and political reasoning notwithstanding, I got out!
This is wonderful to see this sort of support within the church. Having recently graduated from a Jesuit university, I'd have to say its not as clear cut as it looks. While there are a number of huge issues concerning patriarchy and others that plague the church (Vagina Monologues controversies), there are also a great many within the community who hold very progressive views. The director of Campus Ministry at our school was a strong defender of our feminist organization, and we featured a feminist nun (professor) who was named one of the most dangerous theologians in America by a conservative group.
Also, as at least one other commenter has pointed out - the Catholic Church, or at least not the Jesuits, are not in support of the SOA. My university was the first place I learned about the SOA. A group from my school attends the protest every year, and a teach-in on the issue by the Ignatian Solidarity Network (Jesuit) - the protest is strongly supported by both religious and non-religious members of the school community
I feel like I'm commenting all over this thread, and apologize for the spam, if it's viewed that way. It might be a good thing to mention, however, that he was not excommunicated for supporting ordination of women, but rather for participating in a ceremony where a woman was ordained.
Which is still wrong and saddening, but it's different than if he'd been excommunicated for merely stating his beliefs on the issue.
I also want to recommend Hans Kung's Women in Christianity to anyone interested in a good, evidence-based (and cited) study on this topic; he is a Catholic priest, a famous theologian, and he concluded that there is absolutely no reason for women to not be ordained.