Archaeological photograph of a mosaic in the Church of St Praxedis in Rome. It shows Mary in blue as the archetype of the female religious leader. She is seated with St. Prudentiana and St. Praxedis who were both leaders of house churches. Episcopa Theodora is depicted on the far left.Teacher ousted for support of nun
By Dan Horn • dhorn@enquirer.com • September 14, 2009
A volunteer religious education teacher was dismissed this weekend for publicly voicing support for Sister Louise Akers, who has been ordered by Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk to stop teaching because her backing of women priests contradicts Catholic doctrine.
By Dan Horn • dhorn@enquirer.com • September 14, 2009
A volunteer religious education teacher was dismissed this weekend for publicly voicing support for Sister Louise Akers, who has been ordered by Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk to stop teaching because her backing of women priests contradicts Catholic doctrine.
Dr. Carol Egner, a life-long Catholic and gynecologist, got into trouble when she wrote a letter to the Enquirer supporting Akers.
When Egner’s pastor read her letter, he asked her to write another that either renounced her position or made clear that she “yields to the wisdom of the church.”When she refused, she was told she could no longer teach her Old Testament class for sixth-graders at Our Lady of Lourdes parish in Westwood.
“This is frightening,” Egner said Monday. “I think it’s a step backward.”
Her pastor, Rev. David Sunberg, said his decision is not part of a broader crackdown on dissent and he is not following a new, get-tough edict from Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk, who recently ordered Akers to stop teaching in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati because of her public support for the ordination of women.
Spokesman Dan Andriacco also said the archbishop had nothing to do with Egner’s dismissal.“We have an obligation to teach what Christ and His church teaches,” Sunberg said. “If she can’t do that, it wouldn’t be in our interest to have her teach.”
In her letter, Egner said she could find no biblical reference barring women from the priesthood and that allowing women priests could help ease the priest shortage that now afflicts the church. “Some self-reflection on the part of church officials may be beneficial,” she wrote.
She also suggested that the clergy abuse crisis might have been avoided if the church had been more open to the ordination of women.
Egner, who has been a volunteer teacher for two years, said she never discussed her views on women priests in her religion class and she told Sunberg she never would bring it up. Her letter does not identify her as a teacher and does not name her parish.“I feel the punishment is disproportionate,” Egner said. “Priests have abused boys and their punishment was disproportionate the other way. I feel the church really hasn’t taken responsibility and addressed that, and yet I can’t write a letter to the editor.
“I don’t get that.”
The reasons for Egner’s dismissal are similar to those Pilarczyk gave when he told Akers, a teacher for 40 years, that she no longer could teach in archdiocesan schools and institutions. He said the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear when it states that “the ordination of women is not possible” because Christ chose only male apostles.
Pilarczyk gave Akers an ultimatum after her name appeared on the Web site of the Women’s Ordination Conference, which advocates for the ordination of women.
The archbishop told her to remove her name from the site and publicly renounce her support for women priests. Akers agreed to the first demand but refused the second.
Sunberg said he was disappointed Egner also refused to publicly retract her comments.“It kind of surprised me, and it saddened me, too,” he said. “Carol is a nice person.”
Egner, 53, said the decision stunned her. She described herself as “very Catholic” and as someone who still urges her patients to pray for saintly intervention.
She said she’s now likely to leave Our Lady of Lourdes parish.“This just smacks of, this is the way it is and if you don’t like it there may be repercussions,” Egner said. “Catholics have a very long tradition of various beliefs and the ability to talk about them, and sometimes things change.”
***********************************************
If this wasn't so pathetic it would be funny. This is not about a theologian writing a book with questionable conclusions. This is about a volunteer teacher who wrote a letter to a newspaper.
It's amazing to me that years of faithful service can be tossed over board for having a positive opinion on the notion of women priests. But then I'm not vested in the mythos of the Catholic priesthood.
The story of Dr. Egner is, at least to me, a much bigger issue than what happened to Sr. Akers. Akers was a vowed religious advocating for a female priesthood. She was a paid employee of the Cincinnati Diocese. Dr. Egner is a volunteer teacher who merely wrote a letter to the editor in support of Sr. Akers. One wonders if it was her comment about pedophile priests that really irked her pastor. Unfortunately Dr. Egner is correct. The Church has treated it's pedophile priests with more compassion than it has treated it's priests who support women's ordination.
The level of fear being demonstrated here borders on the pathological. There's a whole lot more pressing issues facing the Church than this one. There's a whole lot more pressing issues facing the priesthood than this one. I have to wonder if the reason women's ordination is receiving such attention is because it actually does represent a legitimate and logical answer for most of the issues surrounding the priesthood. Unfortunately, when it comes to mythos, logic has no validity.
The arguments against the ordination of women are themselves illogical and unbelievable. In the final analysis the argument boils down to Pope John Paul II said women can't be ordained. JPII has spoken, end of discussion. Maybe that's how JPII's family worked when he was a child. It didn't work that way in my family. It just brought on more debate and discussion, large amounts of eye rolling, and a frustrated and angry insincere compliance. Which is essentially what is being requested of the laity in Cincinnati. An angry and insincere compliance is better than open dissent or questioning. (It maybe better for the Institutional church but it's destructive for individual believers.)
The issue of women priests goes to the heart of the myth vs secular thinking. There are many people for whom Catholicism is primarily a mythos religion. When the external appearance of a sacrament or ritual is changed, it will give them a very unpleasant jolt. They have a view of the priesthood which is similar to how we all have an unexamined understanding of an intact human body. When we are confronted with a body which no longer fits that picture, we experience a jolt to our system which bypasses the higher reasoning centers. We experience this as being fundamentally wrong. It looks wrong, there for it must be wrong. Logic doesn't apply when the mythos is inaccurately presented.
By the way, I am not implying that a Catholicism grounded in the mythos is bad. A lot of my own Catholicism is grounded in aspects of the mythos which I refuse to examine logically. In some of the work I do, belief in that unexamined mythos is what keeps me sane and reconnects me with this reality.
Almost all of the issues which are core to traditional or conservative Catholics are primarily issues which involve the external presentation of some aspect of the Catholic mythos. Since the defense of the mythos frequently does not stand up to modern logical scrutiny, in the end they all boil down to issues of obedience.
John Paul lived his Catholicism in the world of Catholic mythos. Where he could be acutely logical and forward thinking in secular areas, he was not the least bit forward thinking or logical when it came to aspects of the Catholic mythos--especially the priesthood. I suspect this is why he maintained dead silence on the pedophile issue but was so vocal on the women's ordination issue. Both stances protected the mythos of the priesthood and therefor had a sort of internal logic.
The argument about women's ordination is being played out by two distinctly different world views. That could be said about all of the arguments surrounding the priesthood. All the logic and analysis and pointing to historically documented ordained women clergy will have no effect on Catholics whose Catholicism is grounded in the current Catholic mythos. Women can not be 'in persona Christi' because it's fundamentally visually obvious. Women are not men. Jesus was not a woman, end of discussion.
The early historic church did not have the same understanding of the mythos of the priesthood. The early mythos was not based in gender, it was based in service. That's the description of servant leaders which flows all through Paul's letters. Unfortunately we are a long ways removed from the time of Paul. The mythos of the servant leader has been thoroughly replaced by the mythos of the Council of Trent.
I've often wondered if the ordination of women would be better received if it was grounded in it's own mythos. In this fantasy of mine, the Mass would be identical but the Eucharistic Canon would be altered to reflect Mary's participation in the Incarnation and her offering of herself and her son in the mission of Redemption. Without the Incarnation there is no Redemption.
Ultimately Christianity exists because of the choice of Mary to accept her role in bringing forth the human body of Christ. Maybe it's time the Church accepted women are perfectly ordained 'in persona mary' to sacramentally bring forth the Eucharistic human body of Christ. This would also serve to bring some 'complimentary' balance to the entire priesthood, and is probably why my fantasy will stay a fantasy.
"In persona Mary." This makes sense Colleen, and perhaps the only way that women can be seen as a servant of Jesus Christ in the Church and in bringing Christ into the world. It was Mary who knew Jesus perhaps better than anyone else could ever possibly know Him and love Him. It was she who delighted in His miracles and pressed Him into service at the wedding in which Jesus turned water into wine. Oh how much the Church is missing without the mothers and sisters in the Church helping to guide it in its mission in the world. The voice of women is so needed and it shall not be denied forever.
ReplyDeleteMen are more visually moved interiorly and so the continued focus on men being the only gender for the priesthood. The idea of women in such a role in their current logic and understanding will prevent them from getting beyond this visual of men only as priest.
Will their love for Mary, the Mother of Jesus, the Mother of the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, break these men from their chains of abuse and misogyny?
Mary weeps.
I don't know butterfly. The idea of a truly women's ceremonial equivalent to a male role is not that hard to justify in the context of tradition and Marian theology. At least it doesn't seem to me it would be that hard.
ReplyDeleteThe Church has demonstrated a capacity to change it's mythos when the culture demanded it, which is exemplified by the priesthood as defined by the Council of Trent.
In these current times it seems we have a two fold prolbem. We have the clerical corruption Trent tried to deal with, coupled with a laity whose world view is now oriented to the future, accepting of progress as evolution, and centered in individual rights and responsibilities.
Trenten sacrementality is based in ritual, one view of tradition, and the eternal rightness of doctrinal authority. It looks to the past for answers and gives no credence to the future. As such it really doesn't speak to modern humanity, especially the female component.
I can't think of a single woman who truly wants to go back to the past as it pertains to women. I can think of a lot of men though, who would love to go back to the past as it pertains to women. LOL
If women will not go back than the male Church eventually has to move forward if it wants to survive. The all male priesthood is not the backbone of the Church nor it's life source. Women are, and the men who are comfortable with that knowledge.
In my thinking, the real problem with an all male celibate priesthood is that because it denies the expression of passionate love and creative life giving in it's members, it is really a culture of death.
I know very little about the Council of Trent, except that it was regressive then as it is now.
ReplyDeleteGoing back in time should give us a sense of perspective that will aid in current decisions with thoughts in mind for the succeeding generations. Women today will not accept a going backwards or in things staying the same in the Church or in the world they live in.
Women understand about growth and the future as they have witnessed their children grow from an infant to a toddler, to a pre-teen adolescent, to a young adult to a mature adult. Spirituality is a similar journey of growth. Rituals do not determine a person's level of maturity, even though they go through the passage of time.
Sexism, as Fr Roy Bourgoise says, is a sin. It is hopeful that there are priests who share his view. They may be silent, but they are growing in number. The Church will no longer be a Church by dismissing the women for expressing their opinion on women's ordination or birth control, etc. That will be the Church's death. The spirit of Christ lives on and shall never die, but the all-male Church is dying every time it denies Christ in its women servants who are serving the Lord such as Sister Louise Lears and Sister Louise Akers.
Now they are picking on a Catholic woman who wrote to the editor in a paper in defense of Sister Louise Akers. Enough people will be outraged by this Bishop for doing so, just as the extreme right outrages the center of their own political realm that he might wind up like the Bishop Martino of Scranton and retire?
We can count on change occurring and the truth is I believe in the Holy Spirit to guide us mercifully and lovingly. Otherwise the culture of death wins?
It seems to come down to the fear that there really was a reason for Hans Kung's book "Infallibility a Question." Although he wrote this book as a question, there is a lot of evidence that questions the status of infallibility. He calls the Church Indefectible over time but he finds the standard of infallibility very difficult.
ReplyDeleteThe traditionalists are saying that the Pope has spoken infallibly when he said there can not be women priests, yet any one who studies the issue sees that the early church had women deacons, priests and even bishops until shall we say the customs of the day took grip and women were cast again to the bare foot and pregnant role. We have women priests today! They have been ordained by some male Roman Catholic Bishops who believed that the JP II did not give any sensible reason not to ordain them. Yet we will not know who these Bishops are for many years after their deaths because of the real fear that these men will be not only shamed but not taken care of in their old age pensions. Not that it takes a Bishop to ordain a Bishop, as I learned in the seminary, any Priest has the power to consecrate a Bishop, and I would assume that any person with the Priesthood of Baptism could do the same. This whole idea that Clergy has certain powers and sole claim to the term Apostolic is all nonsense. We are all Apostolic by our Baptisms. We are all priests by our baptisms and if any group or congregation of believers wishes one of us to lead in a consecration of the Eucharist, we can do that too!
The real problem here is a fear of the loss of authoritarian power by this male group. Thus we now have the year of the (male) Priest. When one acts as an authoritarian or in a totalitarian way, there are many central errors that are caused by this mode of thinking and in the RCC the Leadership Crisis in the failure of the Bishops to do anything about criminal rapist and non celibate priests comes to the forefront. If a priest breaks his vow of celibacy with a woman and impregnates her, to remain a priest all he need do is to give up the woman. He need not support her in her pregnancy or the child he helped produce. Only to a totalitarian thinker could this be logical. (continued on next page) dennis
It seems to come down to the fear that there really was a reason for Hans Kung's book "Infallibility a Question." Although he wrote this book as a question, there is a lot of evidence that questions the status of infallibility. He calls the Church Indefectible over time but he finds the standard of infallibility very difficult.
ReplyDeleteThe traditionalists are saying that the Pope has spoken infallibly when he said there can not be women priests, yet any one who studies the issue sees that the early church had women deacons, priests and even bishops until shall we say the customs of the day took grip and women were cast again to the bare foot and pregnant role. We have women priests today! They have been ordained by some male Roman Catholic Bishops who believed that the JP II did not give any sensible reason not to ordain them. Yet we will not know who these Bishops are for many years after their deaths because of the real fear that these men will be not only shamed but not taken care of in their old age pensions. Not that it takes a Bishop to ordain a Bishop, as I learned in the seminary, any Priest has the power to consecrate a Bishop, and I would assume that any person with the Priesthood of Baptism could do the same. This whole idea that Clergy has certain powers and sole claim to the term Apostolic is all nonsense. We are all Apostolic by our Baptisms. We are all priests by our baptisms and if any group or congregation of believers wishes one of us to lead in a consecration of the Eucharist, we can do that too!
The real problem here is a fear of the loss of authoritarian power by this male group. Thus we now have the year of the (male) Priest. When one acts as an authoritarian or in a totalitarian way, there are many central errors that are caused by this mode of thinking and in the RCC the Leadership Crisis in the failure of the Bishops to do anything about criminal rapist and non celibate priests comes to the forefront. If a priest breaks his vow of celibacy with a woman and impregnates her, to remain a priest all he need do is to give up the woman. He need not support her in her pregnancy or the child he helped produce. Only to a totalitarian thinker could this be logical. (continued on next page) dennis
When you discuss myth I am very interested because I, as a semiretired scientist, view all science to all be myth. Scientists learn from careful observation and even express mathematical laws to support findings. Then, new observations of unforeseen facts proves the first observation and law incorrect. We then correct for the new observations and learn it again. And so it goes throughout the ages as the HOly Spirit will be with us ever inspiring us until the end of time. The same is true in philosophy and theology. For a traditionalist, it seems that only history matters and the mythos of the past are to him or her dogmatic truth that can not be changed. It becomes THE TRUTH. Traditionalists do not conceive of mans fallibility to understand the mind of God. We can only learn more of truth. We as humans never learn the truth. Perhaps, we will know more in a new beginning after death!
ReplyDeleteSo this idea of infallibility declared by a frightened group of clergy that had just lost the Vatican states and political power, was a result of the fear of loss of control. The only control that the Clergy ever had was political. So in the 1870’s after Vatican I was declared over then reconvened with a different set of characters, the idea of infallibility was accepted, even though it was voted down with the original cast. It is enforced in the clergy by the control over old age retirement that the Church exercises.
It is the Church triumphant that is indefectible over time, and this Catholic church which we are members is saddened even revolted by the lack of humble servants produced since Vatican I. The traditionalists (neocons) with their American vociferous Bushops are tearing the organized church apart. The attack on so many individual sisters and nuns as well as on the organized groups of nuns in parallel with the attack on so many international theologians is only one sign of the implosion of the Roman Catholic organization as we know it.
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
All of these comments are excellent. My two cents-the hierarchy is ignoring the call of the Holy Spirit to ordain groups the Western Church traditionally excluded-married men and women. As long as the hierarchy continues to ignore the call of the Holy Spirit, the priest "shortage" will continue. I'm not an activist on the issue, but it makes perfect sense to me that the hierarchy thinks God will answer their prayers as they wish, and not as God wishes.
ReplyDeleteDon't expect you to buy this but it may help sharpen your argument.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm
Elastico, no I don't buy it and I've heard it before.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
rdp46 - I agree with you in your comment saying as a scientist that "We then correct for the new observations and learn it again. And so it goes throughout the ages as the HOly Spirit will be with us ever inspiring us until the end of time."
ReplyDeleteThe archeological mosaic of the four leaders in the Catholic Church who are apparently women is denied by the hierarchy. They lie when they say that women cannot become priests.
The hierarchy would not make good scientist leading us to the truth, just as they are not good servants of Jesus Christ, leading us to him, when they deny that women were leaders in the Church prior to them culturally eliminating them.
Elastico, I didn't have time to listen to the whole hour. Peter Kreeft is ok as an apologist, but I'm not really about maintaining the church of the past, but helping evolve a church for the future--the past being it's foundation but not it's end point.
ReplyDeleteKreeft never addresses the issues which really present problems for traditional theologies and that's our evolving notion of how this universe works on a quantum level plus the latest research in human consciousness and neural development.
Instead of reading Kreeft, try Fr.Dairmuid O'Murchu.