Relevant to our recent discussion on why ordination is impossible for women in the Church, Father Steele, who recently converted from Anglicanism, comments on Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ recent article:

When we look at the Second Vatican Council on Ecclesiology we do find the importance of the understanding of Church to include within its mission and charism the collaboration of all God’s people with the ordained priesthood. What Rowan seems to do is what radical Evangelicals do by giving priesthood a job description for the lay person that undermines the sacramental ministry. This is why I made the comment about Rowan’s ecclesial issues that gives me concern over whether Anglicanism has a sacramental approach to its ecclesiology at all.

The question that needs to be put to Rowan and answered by him is whether or not the conferring of Holy Orders to males only is by divine law or not.What a Catholic believes and teaches is that this practice of ordination is by divine law and belongs to the ’substance of the sacraments.’ Therefore, JPII said that ‘the sacrament of Holy Orders definitively remains beyond the competence of the ecclesiastical authority, which governs within the framework of positive ecclesial law.’ It is for this reason that this issue is not given up to what can be defined as the democracy of a committee like the CofE’s General Synod. It is for this reason that there is such havoc facing the Anglican Communion at present. This is not to throw cold water on old friends and colleagues, it is simply an objective evaluation to what is presently happening in the Communion that operates on Rowan’s principle.

via de cura animarum.

This is the final four weeks of my pregnancy, and I hope to share it entirely with Mary.  She was as pregnant as I when she left Nazareth for Bethlehem.  I imagine her riding a donkey, as I try to get comfortable in bed or complain about my back pain.  I imagine her smiling along dusty roads as I drink yet another cup of water.  How beautiful she must have been.  How creation must have bowed at the passing of her whose feet brought Good News.  Truly, the rocks and trees must have cried out in exultation as she carried the Savior past.

She was waiting, filled with joy, as she adored the Life within her womb.  The most beautiful woman who ever lived, worshipping her Savior for nine months in her womb and growing in breathless wonder as His birth drew near.  How she must have radiated as she traveled, a tired pilgrim on the road to Bethlehem.

In the weeks to come, I want to maintain a constant vigil with her in my mind.  As I prepare the home for Edmund’s arrival, I desire to do so in deep joy, disregarding the two-thousand years between us as Mary and I fold little baby clothes and make sure we have everything we need for the births of our sons.  I know she will understand as I worry about getting enough sleep and making sure he gets enough to eat.

So, now I enter the silence with her, waiting for the birth of Him Through Whom the Stars Were Made and waiting for the birth of little Edmund, whose eyes I cannot wait to meet.  Holy Mary, please pray for me.

Okay, folks, this is it.  I am now going to do my best to simply and briefly close my little series with the reason that the sacramental priesthood is for men.  Here we go.

For the sake of brevity, I am going to assert that women and men are fundamentally different.  We are different in our bodies and, because our persons are embodied spirits, in which body and spirit are inseparably linked and enlivened, my body expresses my person.  My spirit/emotions/intellect are intrinsically feminine because I am a woman because I have a female body.  They are necessarily tied to each other.  The same is true for a man.

If we are tied to our bodies and, in fact, are our bodies, then who marries whom is affected.  Two women or two men don’t fit together, affectively/spiritually/emotionally because they don’t fit physically.  Two women or two men don’t truly love each other, in the marital sense; because their bodies are not suited for each other, their persons are not suited for each other. Please pardon the crude biological reference here.  This is really difficult for our post-modern minds to accept because we are so accustomed to “transcending” our biology through technology.  We have made our fertile selves sterile through technology.  We have made our female bodies male through technology.  So, to be tied to our bodies, and, in some sense, bound by them, rankles.

If, however, we are tied to our bodies, one can infer that a man is made for “giving” physically/spiritually/intellectually, while a woman is made to first “receive”, from which she bears wondrously bountiful physical/spiritual/intellectual life.  This is a really important point for the male priesthood issue.  As Catholics, our understanding of the sacramental priesthood is a marital one.  The Catholic priest marries the Church, taking Her as his bride so as to purify her and give his life for her.  The altar is their marriage bed, as the priest stands in persona Christi and says “This is my body given up for you.”  The Church receives his total gift of self and, from that, bears innumerable children.  This is why only a man (who must image and become Christ) can marry the Church.  Because, only a man can marry a woman.

Now, the interlocutor will say, “In Christ there is no woman or man.  So, a woman can as fully image Christ as a man and can as fully stand in persona Christi as a man.”  In some sense, this is totally true.  Of course I am called, through my baptism, to become another Christ just as a man is.  The goal of my Christian life is sainthood, which means that I become so filled with and conformed to Christ that “I live no longer I but Christ who lives in me.”

But, in another sense, this is not true.  Our entrance into Christ’s death and resurrection through baptism does not erase our sex (male/female) but purifies and raises it up.  So, I am called to be most fully and deeply my feminine self as a Christian.  And, I encounter Christ as a woman.  And, I serve in the Church as a woman, with my feminine gifts and obligations.  In the same way, so does a man.  He serves Christ as a man and serves the Church as a man.  And, the Church needs a man to be Her Bridegroom because only a man can sexually-spiritually-sacramentally serve in persona Christi.  So, there it is.

Dear me, I hope I have not offended anyone or misrepresented my understanding of Catholic theology.  Catholics more learned than I, please feel free to clarify what I have said.  I hope this helps our readers who feel alienated or hurt by the Church, and I hope you do continue to research on your own.  Please let this be the beginning of your search.  As Chesterton says, most people don’t hate the Catholic Church; they hate what they think is the Catholic Church.  I encourage you to know fully what the Church believes about Herself and Her Savior before you reject Her.

I was complaining to my fellow fantasy-book reading friends that the Robert Jordan Wheel of Time series had been bogged down since Book 4. Last night I finished Book 9, Winter’s Heart, and I was very pleasantly surprised that something big actually happened.

This is Perrin (wolf-man) on the cover not Rand I think

Rand, aka “the Dragon Reborn” who is the only man who can face the Dark One and save the (mythical) world, cleansed the male half of the True Source. For fellow fantasy buffs who (gasp) haven’t read this series, the True Source is the equivalent to “mana” or the magical power sources found in other fantasy works and games. The Source has a male side, saidin, and a female side, saidar, kind of like yin-yang philosophy. Saidin had been tainted by the Dark One such that all men who could “channel” the Source would go mad and die, leaving only women channelers safe.

Rand talked with a philsopher and developed a theory for how to cleanse the taint off of saidin. Jordan should have more deeply and thoroughly explained the ideas behind this theory and how Rand devised it–I would have loved to read about that, but unfortunately he pretty shallowly explained what Rand was doing when he was doing it (a “tube” of saidin constricted by a larger tube of saidar, squeezing out the taint, having connected the two “poles” of evil in the world with the tubes–well okay).

Whilst Rand was trying to cleanse the Source, the Forsaken (the equivalent to the Black Riders in Tolkien but much, much more petty) were converging from all sides on him, drawn by the immense use of the Power, but Rand’s female channeler friends (the Aes Sedai) and the male channelers (the Asha’man) totally linked together and fended off all the Forsaken, humiliating them in a great way.

There is still an open question as to whether Saidin was completely cleansed, but I don’t really care; the fact that he did something truly important relative to this mythical world after many long books of hemming and hawing is worth it. I am looking forward to the last five books now that some cool things are starting to happen.

Discontinuing of CCHD collection by five bishops – The Curt Jester.

Excellent news.

Our parish’s collection was low-key: I think our parish priests probably knew that there was some bad stuff going on with this collection and so didn’t trumpet it but just passed the collection baskets around. We dropped our envelope in with my donation ($0.00) and why we wouldn’t give one dime to it.

As promised, and just one day late, I am now going to highlight the false notion of the priesthood that often underlies arguments for women in the priesthood, that of priesthood as a career just like that of a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker.  The priesthood is not commensurate with those types of work.  To clarify the points that I am about to make, I want to first define two terms–vocation and avocation.  Vocation refers to as one’s state in life, that through which they encounter the world and live out their call to sanctity; the two vocations to which Our Lord calls persons are married life and “single for the Kingdom” (ie, consecrated life and the priesthood).  One’s avocation, on the other hand, is how one works in the world from one’s vocation.  For example, my vocation is to be a wife/mother and my avocation is to be a writer and teacher (not exactly sure yet how the two will synergize–check back in twenty years).

So, I propose that those who argue for women in the priesthood confuse vocation and avocation.  When it comes to avocations, there is little that women and men cannot share, especially in today’s world, and so those who view the priesthood as a very special avocation rankle that women are kept from it.  After all, if women and men are equal, why can’t women do the same work men can?  Case in point, there is a dear confused priest who is currently touring the country giving a speaking tour titled, “Shatter the Stained Glass Ceiling: Women and the Priesthood.”  “Glass ceiling” is a term used to describe discrepancies in the value and dignity of male/female work.  By applying it to the vocation of the priesthood, this priest demonstrates an misunderstanding of his own vocation.

The priesthood, of course, is a vocation, though it often serves as one’s avocation, in view of the fact that most priests are not also doctors or attorneys or teachers.  This is the reason that we call the priest, “Father”; it connotes his state in life just as “wife and mother” describes my vocation.  I will reflect more later on the nature of the priesthood, so it suffices for now to simply point out that the priesthood is a vocation, not avocation.

Okay, so, follow me here.  First, we recognized that the women-priesthood push is grounded in a Marxist dialectic and employs a false view of equality as homogeneity, highlighting the Christian view of male/female equality as equal in dignity but different and complementary in gifts and obligations.  Then, we noted the difference between vocation and avocation and the confusion that many display of the priesthood as a very special avocation.  At this point, I know that I am making huge leaps in my logic and can already hear various objections.  Certainly, the interlocutor will want to pulverize my assumption that men and women are different and complementary.  Read “Man and Woman He Created Them”; I don’t have the time nor intellect to offer John Paul II’s amazing reflections as well as he.  Then, the liberation “theologian” will want to protest my description of the Christian life as emptying oneself and becoming a slave, arguing that this passivity has led to the poor remaining poor and the oppressed remaining oppressed for many centuries.  I would say this–liberation theology is also grounded in a Marxist dialect (Marxism is so darn insidious) and, well, liberation “theology” seems to head in the same direction that feminist “theology” does, namely, out of the Church.

Okay, I would next like to offer a few personal reflections upon the male priesthood, grounding them especially in Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body, as well as marveling a little at the wondrous beauty in the Church that is the complementarity between women and men.  We are only beginning to appreciate and live this complementarity of gifts and vocations.  I can’t wait until the Church begins to fully live the call to women that is offered in Mulieris Dignitatem and Pope John Paul II’s Letter to Women.  But, let me stop before I am run away with my excitement.  I love this stuff!

As our wonderful young associate pastor reminded us in Mass this morning,

“Lord, it would have been enough that you gave us the Law, but then you gave us Jesus.
And, it would have been enough that you gave us Jesus, but then you gave us the Holy Spirit.
And, it would have been enough that you gave us the Holy Spirit, but then you gave us the Church.
And, it would have been enough that you gave us the Church, but then you gave us the Eucharist.”

Eucharist.  Act of Thanksgiving.  I placed upon the altar today all my little gifts, gifts given me by the Father that I return with gratitude and the hope that I have in some way increased His investment in me, just as the good servant who multiplied his master’s talents.

And, because I am currently reveling in the linguistic and theological beauty that is the new translation of John Paul II’s theology of the body, Man and Woman He Created Them, I will leave you with this delightful reflection:

“The man, on waking up from genetic sleep, expresses it immediately when he says, ‘This time she is flesh from my flesh and bone from my bones.  She will be called woman because from man she has been taken.’ (Gen 2:23)  In this way, for the first time, the man (male) shows joy and even exultation for which he had no reason before, due to the lack of a being similar to himself.  Joy for the other human being, for the second ‘I’, dominates in the words the man speaks on seeing the woman.” (Audience 8.4)

Lord, it would have been enough that you gave me your whole Self, but you gave me another “I” also.  Thank you for my spouse and helpmate.

Dear family and friends (including our blog friends),

Happy Thanksgiving! We have much to be thankful to God for, as I am sure you do as well. This time last year we had 0 children on Earth and one in Heaven. Now we have four children in our home! What a difference a year makes.

Adele’s been with us for three weeks, and her improvement has been astonishing. Last night my mom took the boys to her house for a sleepover, so we had some time for just us and Adele. She giggled, laughed, smiled, pushed her new stroller + baby doll around everywhere, and we even treated her to watching part of a movie (one of the Janette Oke ones). She still has a ways to go to bond with us (especially with trusting me), but she has come a long way even in that. Yesterday she and I spent a while in her room and read books together; she is learning a ton of words right now and pointed to every picture in her book and said “Look! Look!” so I would tell her what the object was. She giggled and gave me big smiles everytime.

So, we hope your family has a blessed Thanksgiving today: May our Lord give you many graces!

The Rose Family

Adele

Must….make…the….pain…..stop!

It started simply: I got the mail; the monthly medicaid forms arrived for the boys (we don’t use it anymore because they are on my insurance, but they will always have medicaid until they are 18), but the addresses were slightly wrong. There was a typo and so the street address was one digit off.

I found the medicaid number to call. I waited, got to talk with a lady, she asked me lots of questions before I could tell her why I was calling; she typed out every answer I gave; finally, I got to tell her the address was wrong, and she said “Oh, I can’t change that. You need to call this other State number.”

I called that number and waited and talked with another lady. I told her “The medicaid address is wrong in your system; it has a typo.” She said “And….what are you wanting me to do?” Me: “Can you please correct the address to the right one?” Her: “Oh no, I can’t do that. You need to call this other State number.”

So I called that number, and the guy asked for the case number; I gave it to him (on the medicaid forms it says “Case No…”) and he said “That is not a correct case number. It should begin with 1010.” So I gave him the boys’ socials, and he began asking about their other insurance (the one they have through my work), so I gave him all of that information. Then he asked “Is anyone pregnant in your home?” And I said “Why does that matter? I am trying to get you to fix the address.” Him: “Well, we need to know these answers.” So I said, “Yes, as a matter of fact, my wife is pregnant.” Him: “Is she on medicaid?” Me: “No. Only the boys are on it because we adopted them through the State.” Him: “Okay. Well, I can’t change the address. You need to call this other number.”

So I called that number and spoke with a young man who asked me a bunch of the same basic questions; I answered, and he asked “For verification, what is your address?” And I told him “That is just the problem; the address you have on file has an error in it that needs correcting. The correct address is 123 but your system has 124.” Him, sounding confused: “Uh-huh. Do you mind if I put you on hold?” Me: “That’s fine.” Him a while later: “Uh, what is it that you want me to do?” Me: “I would like you to correct the address.” Him: “Uh-huh. Just a minute (on hold again). Okay, I can’t do that. You need to call this other number.”

I called the next number, beginning to despair of finding even one competent State employee who could change a wrong address or even know who the right person was who could. The next number, though, was a nice lady who actually seemed to have a clue; she asked me some relevant questions and then gave me two numbers to call to fix the problem–direct numbers to real people. She said that there are two divisions within the State’s medicaid system and both have to be updated.

The first number I called gave me voice-mail that said “You have reached Sue; I have retired from the State of Texas. If you need to reach someone, call Jenny at…” So I called Jenny, and she told me to call the other lady (the same other lady as the competent woman gave me, so I knew this was a good lead). I called the other lady, Joy, who totally knew what was going on and even said “Sounds like someone had some fat fingers and messed up the address. We have it right in our system, so I will create a Data Error Correction Request and send it out to correct the other system.” Hallelujah! I told her she was my heroine and that I was grateful that there was at least one competent person who worked for the State. She laughed and said, “Well, don’t thank me yet–wait until January and see if the address gets corrected or not.” What a great lady.

All told, over an hour on the phone trying to get the State to change one digit.

State-run healthcare: Consider yourself warned.