 |
| Early imagery of Mary wearing Bishop's pallium. |
My Sunday Thought, for this week, is in response to an article from the monastery published in November, 2016. The piece is entitled, Female Priests? Never, Says Pope Francis.
According to the article, Pope John Paul II once wrote that "the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for His Church." And with this, the control of Church and congregation remain firmly in the grip of man. The Apostle Paul is attributed with writing half the books of the New Testament, and would also seem to be, at the very least, a sexist, bigoted, homophobic; all of the same lofty attributes we endow Christ with, right? Well, perhaps not. Again, according to the article, Pope Francis said this of the comment by Pope John Paul II concerning women in the priesthood, "If we read carefully the declaration made by St. John Paul II, it goes in that direction."
Pope John Paul II must be referring to the 11th Commandment, "Mothers of the future are not allowed to minister." I must have missed that errata sheet for the Old Testament. Does this reek of, "Only selfish, sexist, egotistical, power hungry, self-indulgent men who don't like women, need apply," or is it just me?
Pope John Paul II must be referring to the 11th Commandment, "Mothers of the future are not allowed to minister." I must have missed that errata sheet for the Old Testament. Does this reek of, "Only selfish, sexist, egotistical, power hungry, self-indulgent men who don't like women, need apply," or is it just me?
"Perhaps it would be wise to leave that door opened a crack, your Holiness. Being definitive in the negative seems to always bite us in the derriere. Better to say, “Maybe… someday, but I wouldn’t hold your breath.”
Like the Holy Bible, my favorite pope, the Bishop of Rome and the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, his Holiness Pope Francis, appears to be a contradiction. He would seem to be at odds with his view that the Catholic Church should move forward into this new century by embracing 21st Century values, yet even the Holy See appears to be blind to inevitable changes as Christianity as a whole tries to lure this new century's open minded blood into the fold.
What all Christians need to wrap our minds around is what we are never taught about the history of our own scripture. What we first need to understand is that we really don't know who wrote the Bible, if it was written by a handful of men or sixty. We don't know if it was written within a couple of hundred years of Christ's death or over the course of 1500 years. What we seem fairly certain of is that many of the stories were embellished, whether for clarity or other reasons. We also know that many books were left out when the final collection was chosen for inclusion. We can also be fairly certain it is a collection of stories handed down by men, not women, "word of mouth" until necessity required a document be written. What we have come to understand about "word of mouth" is how the spirit of the story might remain, but the accuracy may be questionable. I'm reminded that all through my Catholic upbringing I thought Christ was a lily white, long haired, Caucasian hippy, and not some Middle East prophet tanned to a crisp brown under the desert sun. Caucasian, or more probably Italian, is how he was depicted in paintings and on the crucified on the cross above countless altars. In all of this contradiction the Church simply requires we have faith.
So in a period of mankind's history when men were the ruling class and the religious leaders, we are to accept that their agenda would allow for kinder, gentler, tales imbuing women with equality to men? We are to accept there was no agenda to ensure control of the faithful would be the sole purview of man? Yeah, right. Let's take that on faith. I think not.
I found an interesting article that gives one pause, So You Reject the Apostle Paul, but Accept Jesus? In it, the author touches upon what I see as possible collusion between the Apostles:
By rejecting Paul’s writings, one would have to reconsider the Gospel of Luke since Luke was with Paul, agreed with Paul, and their agreement is clear in how Paul quoted Luke as Scripture (1 Tim 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7). Setting aside Luke also means setting aside Luke’s book of Acts and the previously written gospel narratives mentioned in Luke 1:1–3. This leaves only two books, James and Jude, from the Christian Scriptures. However, Jude closely resembles 2 Peter 2 even speaking of fulfillment of Peter’s revelation, so that one cannot reasonably accept Jude. James was also an Apostle with Peter, associated with the Twelve, and accepted Paul (Acts 15; Gal 1:18–2:10), so James’ writing would also be dismissed.
It would seem, by this, we can assume that the Apostles were left to the mercy of their own selfish male frailties after the savior's death, and the frailties of man are many, even among the faithful. If we accept the possibility of personal or societal agendas poisoning biblical content, what then are we to believe? Where does this truly leave our faith? More to the point, where does it leave any judgement we levy against women or homosexuals? And, why are we passing judgement in the first place, when it states, very clearly, in this very same Bible, this "Word of God," that we are not to judge?
If women were not to hold positions of ministry, why is Mary depicted so frequently wearing the bishop's pallium? The pallium is an article of the bishop's raiment seen in the etching, above, as the white ribbon of cloth, hanging down the front and back of Mary's outfit, with a small cross at the bottom. This pallium symbolized the highest priestly ministry, and could only be worn by the pope, or by a bishop given the privilege from the pope, and only then when the bishop was exercising functions of solemn liturgies. So, why then is Mary shown wearing it so often?
It is difficult enough to have faith in a religion whose scripture is rife with so many written contradictions due to the patchwork nature of how it was assembled, a hurried inattention to details, the incompetence of scribes taking down the stories from illiterate story tellers, etc. To complement these written contradictions we also have to struggle with well-meaning artistic contradictions, as well. I mean, really, I've seen the old, historic photos of women in the middle east of the 19th century. They might have been considered beautiful by Bedouin standards but, woof! And I really hesitate to say I'm being kind in my opinion.
Yet, we always depict women from biblical stories as beautiful women. We should not be surprised by this, and it is one reason I minister that folks should use a critical eye on history when reading anything historic, or considering anything artistic, depicting the times which is created more than a generation or two after the actual events. we must keep active, open minds to understanding who was in charge, what were the politics of the day, and anything else that might drive a personal, psychological, or societal agenda which might color recorded history with lies, half-truths, or with parables which may not have occurred at all but are used for clarification of a particular philosophical or moral edict.
Where Mary is concerned, she is known to have been the favored of Christ, and this was something of a point of contention with his male Apostles. How possible, or probable, is it that after His death these same slighted Apostles might have shunned Mary and intentionally diminished her relevance in the life of Christ? The Gospel of Mary was not included in the Bible, and the only references to it seem to come from the Dead Sea Scrolls as translated in the Nag Hammadi Library, the "Gnostic Gospels." If you want a real eye opener to differences in thought, try wrapping your mind around the Gospels of Mary and Thomas.
We have entered the 21st century with the fervent hope of finally considering an end to discrimination, bigotry, and inequality. Christianity, though growing, comes under constant fire for an inability to change those customs which have little to do with faith and more to do with a control of people's minds which wasn't even morally proper back in the day, much less in today's society.
I think the so-called Church of Christ, the Christian Church, should reflect on what Christ would do, and be less concerned with controlling the minds of their congregation which should not even be attending a church to pray, much less be giving money to it. Perhaps Christian would be better off understanding the scripture they have so much faith in, and less time listening to the clergy telling them what to do for salvation. Only you can earn your salvation, and only you can pray to God, and only you can ask and receive God's grace and forgiveness. Clergy can show you a path, it is up to you to determine if it is God's will. You cannot blame clergy when you discover, in the presence of God, they were leading you astray, intentionally or not. You will have only yourself to blame for choosing poorly.
“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."-- Matthew 6:2-8
Women are proving themselves more than capable of taking on the world of men. As women, I would think their genetic capacity for love, compassion, tolerance, and forgiveness would make them far better ministers than most men would ever hope to be. As for female priests, history has accepted women in roles of religious and spiritual leadership for thousands of years in cultures throughout the world, yet the Abrahamic religions approach the concept with eyes tightly shut and ear plugs snugly in place...
…For this people’s heart has grown callous; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.…
-- Matthew 13:15-17
...I'm just saying.
Editor's Note
(re: disclaimer cum "get out of jail free" card)
Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion. It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other. An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so. This is also why, occasionally, I will present an "opinion" just to stir an emotional pot. Where it may sound like I agree with the statements made, I'm more interested in getting others to consider another viewpoint.
It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and then engaging in peaceful, constructive, discussion in an arena of mutual respect concerning the opinions put forth. After over twenty years with military intelligence, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.
We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human. God's test for us is what we do afterward, and what we learn from the experience.
Pastor Tony spent 22 years with Air Force Intelligence as a planner, analyst, briefer, and instructor. He is founder of the Congregation for Religious Tolerance and author/editor of the Congregation's official blog site, "The Path," which offers a vehicle for commentary and guidance concerning one's own personal, spiritual, path toward peace and the final destination.
