The Ewe's Papal Audience in Rome

Despite publishing my letter to Pope Francis requesting a private “theology of women” discussion with him, and despite subsequently sending him the same letter directly to his Vatican address as well as via the U.S. Papal Nuncio, I not only did not have a private papal audience while in Rome, I didn’t even receive the courtesy of an acknowledgement that he or the Nuncio received my letter. 

In the packets I mailed Francis and the Papal Nuncio I included a copy of my unpublished book manuscript for which this blog is named, “Questions from a Ewe to her Shepherds.”  True to the title, it contains a lot of well-researched questions about women in the church.  Since Francis professes a desire to strengthen the “theology of women” I assumed he would appreciate receiving this work about women – which, by the way, a few noted theologians have already read, praised and encouraged me to publish.  

Receipt of that multi-year labor of love also went unacknowledged.  Thus, it is difficult not to question Francis’ sincerity when he says he feels women are asking deep questions that deserve answers.

Anyway, though I did not have a private papal audience, the tour operator did get us swell seats for the general Wednesday papal audience.  So, I was able to watch the iconic Francis glide within a few feet of me twice as his pope-mobile passed. 

During that papal audience Francis spoke about forgiveness and quoted from John 20:21-23 where Jesus says, “'As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’  And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them ‘Receive the holy Spirit.  Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained’.”   Francis then said that through the Sacrament of Reconciliation priests - today’s apostles - continue the work forgiving sins that Jesus entrusted to the first Apostles as mentioned in that reading from John 20:21-23.

Now, I know Frank is a busy guy and might not have had time in the last two months to read either my blog or an 82-page (150-page if double-spaced) book manuscript.  But, I would like to think he at least had time to read the sentences immediately preceding and following the ones he quoted from John’s gospel. 

John 20:19-20 says this: "On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’  When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side.  The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord."  

Yes, my dear friends, if Francis had taken the time to read the two verses preceding the ones he used, he might not have erred and attributed the commissioning Jesus gave to the disciples about forgiveness as something reserved only for Apostles.  He would have realized that Jesus' burst of holy absolution air landed on the disciples, not the Apostles.  "So what?" you might ask.  Why should we care who was present for the forgiveness flurry that day? 

Let’s take a moment for a quick review of the difference between “disciple” and “apostle.”  A “disciple” was any follower of Jesus and included oodles of women.  However the word “apostle” means “one who is sent” and the church considers only the twelve men named in one gospel passage as “the Apostles.”  The church hierarchy restricts ordination only to men because of belief that today’s clergy via ordination continue the apostles’ work.  And, since it believes Jesus only had male apostles, only males are ordained.   

Consequently, the hierarchy gets very picky about the differences between “apostles” (i.e. something only men can be) versus “disciples” (something men or women can be)…unless the gospels’ wording inconveniently doesn’t support marginalizing women.  In those cases, where the gospels say “disciple” the hierarchy mentally substitutes “apostle” and carries on in its merry marginalizing ways.  But, please don’t be so foolish as to think where scripture says “apostle” just anyone is permitted to substitute “disciple.”  I am learning that this kind of moral relativism dishonestly representing the gospels is reserved only for men with pointy hats.

Let’s also pause for a quick sanity check.  Most of the male apostles abandoned Jesus during his Passion but a group of devoted female disciples walked his entire Passion with him.  Furthermore, it was to women disciples that the resurrected Jesus first appeared on Easter morning.  Thus, I think it’s very, very, very likely that women were some of the disciples in the locked room that first Easter evening.  So why don't women administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

O.K., we looked at the sentences preceding the ones Francis quoted.  We readily see that he erred by saying that Jesus commissioned apostles when in fact scripture clearly indicates he interacted with disciples which could be women.  But this is not just an errant statement.  In fact, Francis broke the 8^th Commandment – intentionally or unintentionally, he bore false witness against the gospel. 

Now, let’s quickly recall the sentence which followed those Francis quoted.  John 20:24 says, “Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.”  Hmmm, one of the Apostles wasn’t even there.  Yet, most likely, women were.

I mentioned these passages to the monsignor who was our group’s spiritual director and he seemed to think my concern was about Thomas being a full-fledged apostle.  This gospel passage from John is considered a key one in establishing "ordination" of the Apostles - though Jesus ordained precisely zero people.  If Thomas wasn't there, how could he be "ordained?"  Thus the monsignor responded, “I think Thomas received the Holy Spirit in abstentia.”

Riddle me this, Batman: How does the Holy Spirit pour out its gifts to Thomas in abstentia but somehow floats past the women disciples likely present in the locked room?  Had they sprayed themselves with Holy Spirit repellent preventing it from resting upon them?  I sent that very question (absent the part about Holy Spirit repellent) to the monsignor and he responded that it was a good question.  However, reading Section 104 of Francis’ recently released Apostolic Exhortation entitled “Evangelii Gaudium” we learn that Francis probably doesn’t think it’s a good question. 

In Section 104 Francis talks about the church having “profound and challenging questions which cannot be lightly evaded” regarding women.  My question certainly might seem to qualify as both profound and challenging.  But perhaps years of inhaling incense alters one’s brain because in his very next sentence, Francis contradicts himself and helps us understand that he has no intention of addressing profound challenging questions like mine.   He adamantly states that any question associated with the all-male priesthood is off-limits, "The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion...".   Thus, questions like mine are not “lightly evaded”; they are overtly, painfully, unjustly, and inhumanly evaded with greater distance of avoidance than must be respected for a physical restraining order. 

In the stratification of evasive tactics, these questions require a lot more effort than "light" evasion, but, mind you, they will be evaded.  It's just going to take more effort to evade them than other topics the hierarchy wishes to avoid.  For example, the hierarchy must make-up stories to discredit the very apparent depictions of early Christian women leading worship services such as appear in the Roman catacombs and other similar archaeological evidence.  Making-up alternate realities and histories takes no small amount of effort - hence ignoring them cannot be done with everyday "light" evasion tactics like sipping a diet cola.  One needs full-octane, classic-Coke strength robustness in those evasive efforts. 

Francis’ entire Section 104 is filled with unfounded and sometimes insulting statements about women and ministry.  Yet Francis fences as “unquestionable” all his pious sexist statements and unfounded assumptions because to question them would be to tamper with that already shaky foundation justifying the all-male priesthood.  Indeed, most of the profound questions women have will lead very quickly to questioning the unstable foundation forming the hierarchy’s justification for barring women from the priesthood. 

It’s starting to seem like the only “profound questions” asked by women Francis is willing to address are the ones he’s asking not the ones women are actually asking.  It’s kind of like trying to repair a sinking ship without talking to the crew or restricting the crew from talking about the huge hole in the ship’s hull.  What are the chances of fixing a ship when such restrictions apply?

When the hierarchy sacrifices correct reading of scripture to preserve papal utterances does the organization have any authority?  What is our responsibility when we see this trade-off between truth and protecting clerical culture and traditions?

Rest assured Francis, regardless of the volume of verbal or printed papal prattlings refusing to discuss women’s true concerns, I and many other faithful will continue to illuminate inconsistencies and incorrect scripture usages that marginalize women.  We will continue to question in search of truth.  We will continue to ask as Jesus did, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (MT 15:3) 

Take it from a real mother, “Because I said so” is almost never an effective parenting technique and its efficacy diminishes if not disappears the more your children mature.

Here is the English translation of Evangelii Gaudium Section 104:

Demands that the legitimate rights of women be respected, based on the firm conviction that men and women are equal in dignity, present the Church with profound and challenging questions which cannot be lightly evaded. The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion, but it can prove especially divisive if sacramental power is too closely identified with power in general.  It must be remembered that when we speak of sacramental power “we are in the realm of function, not that of dignity or holiness”.  The ministerial priesthood is one means employed by Jesus for the service of his people, yet our great dignity derives from baptism, which is accessible to all. The configuration of the priest to Christ the head – namely, as the principal source of grace – does not imply an exaltation which would set him above others. In the Church, functions “do not favour the superiority of some vis-à-vis the others”.   Indeed, a woman, Mary, is more important than the bishops. Even when the function of ministerial priesthood is considered “hierarchical”, it must be remembered that “it is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members”.   Its key and axis is not power understood as domination, but the power to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist; this is the origin of its authority, which is always a service to God’s people. This presents a great challenge for pastors and theologians, who are in a position to recognize more fully what this entails with regard to the possible role of women in decision-making in different areas of the Church’s life.

"Doubting Thomas" - a person of faith or a person of beliefs?

This weekend we will read about Thomas.  Likely someone will refer to him as “doubting Thomas” though he was brave enough to be out and about after Jesus’ crucifixion while many of the disciples were fearfully cowering in a locked room.  Because he was brave enough to be out and about, likely continuing work in imitation of Jesus, he missed when the resurrected Jesus appeared to the “chicken” disciples locked in the room. 

Now, none of these female and male disciples believed Jesus had risen until they saw Jesus.  Yet somehow over the course of history, Thomas’ character has been maligned as though his faith is of inferior ilk because he too didn’t believe until he saw the resurrected Jesus.  One might argue that since Thomas was brave enough to continue Jesus’ work, his faith surpassed that of the chicken disciples.  He operated in faith without the certitude of belief, and the opportunity for certitude presented itself a week later for him than for those paralyzed in fear.

Faith is acting based upon trust.  Belief is certitude that something is so.  We act in faith without knowing based upon what we accept in certitude as beliefs.  So, in some ways faith is the opposite of belief while at the same time stands upon the shoulders of belief.

What did the disciples believe?  What was their certitude? 

Scripture writes, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name (John 20:30-31).”

Ah, they believed Jesus was the “Messiah” and “Son of God” and such belief would give them life. 

Once upon a time, Christians had no creed.  They just came to simple acceptance that Jesus was Son of God and Messiah and somehow following his example would render life.  The various Christian communities approached this in slightly different ways but were united in their simple foundational beliefs.  They acted in faith upon those simple beliefs and their actions galvanized a caring community.  One might say they were long on faith-based actions and short on certitude coming from beliefs.

But, as time marched forward and human nature’s impact took its toll, things changed.  Within a few hundred years of Jesus’ death people had vehement arguments as they tried to complete the sketch of Jesus, filling in details not recorded.  People sought certitude where there was none and so they ascribed certitude to their suppositions.  Yet scripture tells us that Jesus did many things not recorded.  Scripture seems to tell us at the end of the last written gospel, that the details about Jesus aren’t as important as just remembering a few key things: Jesus is the Messiah and is Son of God.

But since humans are curious to know intimate details about celebrities, the interpolations and interpretations continued.  Also, the cerebral exercise of “believing” in certitude is a lot less work and involves a lot less risk than the physical effort of “acting” in faith.  It seems too that many humans fixate upon being right more so than on doing right. 

History tells us laypeople argued in the marketplace and on the streets about these unknown and unknowable details associated with Jesus.  Uncomfortable with the public debate and in an effort to force unity, the emperor Constantine, not Pope Sylvester, called the Council of Nicea. 

The debate tearing apart Constantine’s kingdom was one around the question, “What does it mean to be the Son of God?”  One camp insisted one relationship between God and Jesus and the other camp insisted upon another.  Church leaders leading the different camps sanctioned violence against those holding different views.   As emperor, Constantine could not defend his kingdom with intra-country division.  So, he called all the bishops together in hopes that they would end the internal argument.

The Council of Nicea produced the Nicene Creed, which expanded upon what one must believe to be called a Christian.  It primarily was trying to give a definitive answer about the somewhat unknown and unknowable relationship between Jesus and God.  But the debate did not subside with the imposition of the Creed.  The creed just divided people.  Some of that division went underground while some of it remained public.  The creed said nothing of love.  It said nothing about actions.  It said nothing about faith. 

We fast forward to today and see the continued shift from people who acted caring for each other due to a trusting faith based upon limited certitude of beliefs to being people who build an elaborate, complex and intricate set of certitudes (beliefs) and whose actions focus mainly on imposing or propagating their certitudes upon others. 

According to scripture, God is the full embodiment of love and truth.  One might assume from Jesus' actions, words and role as son of God that he's big on love and truth too.

However, somehow “love” has transformed from being patient, kind, not jealous, not pompous, not inflated, not rude, not seeking its own interests, not quick-tempered, not brooding over injury, not rejoicing over wrongdoing but rejoicing with the truth, bearing all things, believing all things, hoping all things, enduring all things (1 Cor 13:4-7).

Though scripture admits it does not provide a complete record, certitude is ascribed to interpolations of things not said.  Scripture says nothing of Jesus mandating clergy gender for all perpetuity.  But “love” has been perverted to ascribing certitude to Jesus’ intentions and using that certitude to marginalize and excommunicate people unless they affirm certitude drawn from conjecture. 

Oddly enough certitude is ascribed to things contrary to what is recorded in scripture too.  For example, scripture indicates Peter was married yet “love” has been perverted to ascribe certitude to Jesus’ desire for celibate clergy and using that certitude to marginalize and excommunicate people too.

Scripture says nothing about birth control yet “love” has been perverted to ascribe certitude to Jesus’ opinions on the topic and using that certitude to marginalize people, deny health benefits and sue civil governments that insist upon providing healthcare coverage.

Scripture indicates Jesus likely healed a homosexual centurion’s male sexual servant/lover.  (As background, Matthew 8 and Luke 7 contain the story in which a centurion asks Jesus to heal his pais who is his entimos doulos.  The Greek word pais can mean son, servant or a special servant who is a male lover.  Entimos doulos means “honored slave.”  Given the context, it is unlikely that the centurion speaks of his son and the added qualifier of entimos doulos seems to say this was no ordinary servant.  This leans towards the likeliest meaning is that the centurion told Jesus he was not worthy to have him come under his roof to heal his male sexual servant, but if he only said the word, his honored servant would be healed.)  Yet “love” has been perverted to certitude about dehumanizing marginalization of homosexuals instead of following Jesus’ example of extending tender inclusive care.

Scripture indicates Jesus used compassionate, merciful common sense but somehow “love” has been perverted into certitude that Jesus wants mothers to die unless the child she carries who is killing her can also be saved.  Somehow love has been perverted into certitude that Jesus would prefer two dead people than just one dead person.

Scripture doesn’t indicate Jesus excluded people from communion based upon their morality or political voting patterns.  Indeed “at that first Eucharist before he died”, Jesus gave communion to Judas, knowing that Judas had already betrayed him and had not confessed to it.  But, somehow “love” has been perverted into certitude that communion should be withheld from people who don’t share certitude of beliefs 100% in line with those of the hierarchy.

Many in the church scratch their heads that the masses flee organized religion.  Yet, many who have fled organized religion do so because they passionately desire to imitate Jesus’ caring actions acting in faith rather than certitude.  The certitude they carry is that they must care for the world and all its creation without judging it. 

Are you a person of deep faith trusting and acting to unite, include and care though you do not know or are you a person filled with certitude of beliefs that justify your inaction, rejection or divisiveness?   Do you believe scripture when it says it doesn't contain Jesus' complete history or do you require so much certitude that you ascribe certitude to your interpretation that scripture is the complete revelation of God?  Do you require more certitude than scripture offers so you insert certitude into interpolations, traditions and dogmatic utterances?  Are you like Thomas able to act in faith despite uncertainty or are you like the majority of disciples, locking yourself in somewhere, cowering in fear waiting for certitude?  Do you malign those who act in faith while you enshroud yourself in what certitude you have and hide in fear?  Are you a person of faith or a person of beliefs?