Pope Francis is just off the plane from his celebrated voyage to Brasil, a trip so lively and successful it earned the name "Popacabana." Popacabana was well-covered by news agency and from the standpoint of the pontiff's handlers, well spun.
Each time I read about this pope I marvel at how much I like the guy and fear his "body people"/publicity team. I often think the rubric for this pope emerged from the sweet 2011 film Habemus Papam . In Nanni Moretti's film, a pious and unassuming cardinal is elevated reluctantly to the papal throne, the chief irony being that the very aspects of his nature which make him such a fine and gentle servant of Christ, render him less a than than ideal papabile.
So Pope Francis has said "yes" today, to inclusion of LGBT people in Roman Catholic worship, and "no" to the ordination of women.
Rome stoops to divide and conquer.
Some of this reporting misleads. Pope Francis does not much depart from Ratzinger on the matter of LGBT Catholics. According to doctrine, all Catholics are asked to abstain from sex outside of marriage and the sacraments if such abstaining proves impossible. The rules for same sex couples have not changed. Pope Francis merely stresses that gay people should not be scorned when they show up at mass. Far be it from me to throw a compliment Ratzinger's way, but that was actually his position as well.
Where Ratzinger and Francis may be parting is on the matter of gay priests. My team of experts leads me to believe that by conservative estimates half the Roman Catholic priests in the world may be gay. Ratzinger wanted to impose a don't ask don't tell policy in the seminaries; Francis has no problems with gay priests as long as they remain celibate--which, let us not forget, does not mean "chaste," but unmarried.
Pope Francis offered some attractive rhetoric on the matter of women. The logic he espouses is familiar to anyone who practices a religion whose orthodoxy prohibits women from being clerics. The argument goes like this; women enjoy not a second class status, but its opposite, a more essentially exalted status, even then that of male clerics; women are hearth-keepers and mothers.
"It is not enough to have altar girls, women readers or women as the president of Caritas," he said, according to the Catholic Herald. "Women in the church are more important than bishops and priests," he said, in the same way that "Mary is more important than the apostles."
Thus the pope basically argues that 1) women should get more to do and 2) that Mary is more important that the apostles.
I once heard a theologian priest told this joke from the pulpit: An elderly lady stayed after mass and prayed the rosary in the pews. With each "Hail Mary" her voice got louder and louder and somehow more urgent. The priest, hearing this, quietly interjected. "Jesus hears your prayer," he said. The woman prayed louder and in a more desperate tone. Again the priest spoke. "He hears you. Don't give up." One more time the woman increased her volume and the priest intervened. "Christ hears you."
"Will you keep it down, Father? It's not Jesus I want to talk to. It's his mother."
Women like my very devout Irish grandmother never exactly called it that, but they felt the divinity of Mary with an intensity that rivaled that of their feelings for God. Francis knows, especially as a Latin American, that for much of the Roman Catholic world, despite that such worship constitutes all out blasphemy, Mary is already way more powerful than the apostles. She was conceived without sin. She is the apostle who didn't run away from the foot of the cross. For relatively uneducated, but devout Roman Catholics, Mary is a virtual divinity. To say that Mary is more important than the apostles is something not at all radical dressed up to appear somewhat radically feminist. Francis recognizes the need to appease women.
Another aspect of these reports that warrants parsing is the use of the word "church"--as in "'the Church' will not ordain female priests, saying that the stance was "definitive." The Church does not really ordain anyone. The Vatican ordains. It is erroneous to use the terms "the Church" and "the Vatican" as if they were synonyms. The part of "the Church" that is the Vatican does not ordain women, but a small part of "the Church" which is comprised of men and women ordained in the apostolic succession who refuse to accept the prohibition of ordaining women and are determined to disobey the pope for reasons of conscience do ordain women.
And the Women's ordination movement is burgeoning at present. But there are Roman Catholic women priests. These are women who engage in Divinity training and prepare for the priesthood usually under the tutelage of conventionally ordained male Roman Catholic priests. I was talking with a Roman Catholic friend the other day who just began to go to church. He has a stepdaughter and the couple wants to raise her in a church. I casually mentioned to this man, an Italian-American with a Ph.d. raised Catholic in New York City, that there was a whole underground Roman Catholic priesthood. He was surprised.
Of course conservative Roman Catholics do not like this phenomenon much. Female Catholic priests endure a lot of name-calling: They're called "fake priests," "pretend priests," and of course "apostates," "heretics" and "blasphemers" by people who seem almost to believe St. Peter lived in a Gothic cathedral and wore satin and bling. How easily they forget that what they see as conventional Roman Catholic priesthood began as a weird, raggedy, orthodoxy-flouting rapidly expanding "cult."
The women priests I know are at least as well-trained in divinity, theology and church history as the male priests I know; they benefit from having strong spiritual mentors (conventionally ordained male priests usually), and act as shepherds in small communities supported in great measure by people like me who have decided they could no longer contribute financially to a parish that funnels money to the Vatican.
I am active in the parish in which I live, but if you think that because you have an open-minded priest and a progressive parish, none of the money you place in that basket on a stick goes to the Vatican, you are mistaken. Parishes kick back to their dioceses and dioceses to Rome, and your fine priest loses his parish if he fails to comply. If you put money in the basket in the Archdiocese of New York, for example, some of your money may already have paid legal fees for priests accused of violating children. If you put money in the basket in Milwaukee ten years ago, you might have paid for a detective to dig up dirt to discredit a plaintiff in a case against a predator priest. Your priest may have voted for Obama, but he still has to kick back to your diocese. My diocese is led by a bishop who was 'thisclose' with Vito ("Feel my tumor") Lopez "Gropez." My bishop took to the radio airwaves to compare same-sex marriage to marriage between human beings and their domestic animals. If I put money in my basket next Sunday, this bishop gets a cut. And bishops kick back to Rome.
If you think you can sit in church and not kick back to Rome, consider this; your church is a tax exempt organization. Even our beloved atheists help to defray the costs of sending Roman Catholic missionaries to sub-Saharan Africa to remind people in regions ravaged by heterosexually transmitted HIV/AIDS that using a condom is a sin.
I have written elsewhere about the institutional patriarchy and misogyny of the Vatican. My own response thus far has been to limit my contributions to my parish to non-financial ones. I give a great deal of time and talent to my church/conventional parish, but I don't give my parish money! I wish I could--but it seems somehow like a sin.
The awareness that so much of the work done at churches is done by women has given me pause today. We learned much about nuns when news of the Apostolic Visitations (Inquisitions) broke in 2009 and even more, later, via "the Nuns on the Bus." At the masses I attend, even at the most conservative parishes, most of the people distributing Holy Communion, proclaiming scripture and presiding over catechesis of children are women. This disappointing sound-bite today has given me pause; perhaps my choice to work in my parish is not so benign and morally acceptable.
Perhaps all women who work for the Roman Catholic Church should examine whether they wish to enable a church that accepts our labor but uses a tired, transparent and well-refuted (by its own theologians) argument against the ordination of women to keep us out of the conventional priesthood. It is interesting to imagine what might happen if between now and Christmas, women and men who view the Vatican's case for barring women from conventional ordination as inconsistent with Jesus's teaching--were to refuse to work in and contribute financially to Roman Catholic churches.
In the developing world, such a "faith action" (I might call it) would never work. The Vatican has long pinned its hopes for growth on the poor of India, sub-Saharan Africa and South America where obedience among Roman Catholics is the norm. But what if Western European and North American Roman Catholic women were to say "no mas?" ("No mass.") Just a thought.