As I woke up this morning, I saw an (inner) image. It was a bird, and it was an image of the Church.
First, I saw only the body and the wings - each wing representing two rather opposite directions - one very conservative and one very liberal wing.
And the body represents those in between - some closer to one direction, and some to the other, and some in the middle.
Some were also in the tip of the bill and in the claws - the radical ones - staying in touch with the ground when necessary (when not flying), as well as pointing in new directions.
The head represents Christ.
The "problem" with this bird - and that's why I saw only the body and its wings at first, not the head or feet - is that the wings are going in opposite ways, making the bird unable to fly.
This is because they aren't syncronized with the will of the head.
The bird can't even walk forward on its feet since it can't keep the balance.
Each wing is mainly focused on itself, its own feathers, and is even hostile against the other wing, trying to get rid of it - as if the bird would be able to fly with only one wing...
(I wish to add to the previously written thoughts that you'll find through the link, that "authority" and "mindsets" can be liberal as much as conservative - what is needed is deep discernment of the will of God - and it's not found in the will of this world, or in every human wish, not even in everything that comes from Church pulpits.)
***
Feel free to comment this and to spread it to all kinds of Christians - images like this are given to be discerned by the whole Church body.
Got a few thoughts.... Sorry if they aren't well expressed - wanted to scratch them down before I forgot.
Okaaaay.....
If God is genderless (neither male or female) - which most theologians seem to agree about these days - how come Christ's maleness has become so important in our times (regarding the question of women ordinations for example)?
If a specific gender isn't needed for the salvation of all mankind - female and male - why is it suddenly extremely needed in order to say a few prayers over bread and wine or to handle the other sacraments. Doesn't the holy Spirit listen to womens' prayers? Since when?
If gender would be important for salvation - only men can be saved since Christ was a male. Or Christ would have needed to be incarnated twice - once as a man and once as a woman. But God became human - and that was fully enough.
And God created men and women alike and equal to reflect something of God together. Not only men or women. But together.
And God didn't give men and women different cultural or religious tasks depending on their gender. (They got only partly different biological functions.)
Men (mainly males!) constructed society with its roles - different in different cultures. There are also matriarchates... And what men decided about can be changed (contrary to what God created as biological functions which work automatically unless something is wrong).
If both women and men together mirror God in the way they're created - how come only men can mirror God fully and exclusively in the Church? That's the conclusion one has to draw when looking at today's rules. Men can do everything in the Church - while women can't. So what went wrong in the construction of woman? Is it a fatal error by God during the creation of human beings that made the Church officials of today think they have no power to ordain women? Because the copy of the God-part mistakenly got so incomplete in the woman, unlike in the man....?
And why even speak about being called to different Church tasks because of biology? I though Church life was still ruled by theology... Like in those days when women were in fact ordained.... In spite of a surrounding misogynist society (much worse than today). The Church was on the forefront here at that time.... Gave the world an example to follow. But instead finally capitulated - to get worldly advantages by mixing in better?
And if this was true - that biology is what matters most in ministry - it would have been said very clearly by Jesus - in words. He would have repeated them over and over again, as he usually did with important stuff. He would most probably also have given women special Church roles that have no equivalents among men. But there are no such different roles (no, making coffee or cleaning toilets doesn't count...), just a present lack of roles for woman ministry - contrary to male ministry.
It should rather be called human ministry.... Since things were meant to proceed as in the beginning....
A call is given personally to an individual, woman or man - not impersonally to men who eventually don't feel like getting married and are looking for some kind of career to get a better status than by just remaining bachelors. Church careers aren't the worst on the market. In spite of everything that has been revealed lately about what really happened under the perfect surface.
No matter how much one looks at this question from all possible angles - it always boils down to an essence of the necessity of a total equality in God - equality in Christ - not separation because of gender - but unity because of being human beings....
If God is genderless - isn't Christ humanness what matters most?
If it's a crime to be convinced that women may be ordained, then I'm a criminal too, and you'll have to put me in jail, where I'd be accompanied by numerous such convicts.
If it's a crime to attend a woman's ordination, then, please, take me to all such crime scenes in the world, so I may share that heavenly joy, before you put on dogmatic handcuffs and striped chasubles on all the attendants.
I'll then rejoice as an unofficial prisoner chaplain among my partners in crime. We'll attend to those who are innocently imprisoned, by experts on Canon law.
And filled with God's grace we'll sing all night long until the prison gates are opened by angels so we may march out on the bright fields of freedom, still joyfully singing, since God gave us a sign that even the blind could see.
S/He Who Is is walking with us.
Charlotte Thérèse
(The poem is dedicated to Raymond Burke, inspired by his action against Sister Louise Lears.)
Women priests - different views - possible coexistence?
I read an interesting blog post today by Pamela Dolan, about women priests - from yet another angle.
Here's an excerpt:
"My grandmother died last month. She was one of those matriarchs whose passing can shake a family to its foundation. When I was little I called her my “double mother” because she was more like a parent to me than a grandparent. It was in large part because I didn’t want to risk my relationship with her that I spent more than a decade “soul searching” before I left the Roman Catholic Church and began exploring a vocation to ordained ministry. She was of the generation that sincerely considered it a sin just to set foot in a Protestant church. The disruption in our relationship caused by my choice to become an Episcopalian was a longstanding source of guilt, even anguish.
Her death inevitably reopened many of the wounds I thought I had moved past. My sense of vocation is strong, and has been confirmed a number of times by people and processes I trust. (I’ve mentioned in earlier posts that I’m a postulant to the priesthood.) Nonetheless, when I learned that my grandmother had died, my grief was complicated by anxiety; questions such as “will I be allowed to receive communion at her funeral Mass?” haunted me."
I got the following thoughts which I now invite you all to discuss here.
I wonder what the Church would look like if we could set aside all that prevents Christ from shining through fully. The Christ that doesn't make a difference between women and men when he calls, but who calls the person.
I guess the whole beauty would suddenly be seen, and attract the world...
I've written quite a lot about the subject in my blog through the years.
And somehow come to a conclusion that should work if we see the question as what it really is - not one of faith, as it's often mistaken for - but one of practice (like married priests), which makes it possible to change it back to how it in fact used to be - when women were also allowed to serve in Church ministry - during over 1000 years.
Wouldn't it be possible to have different practices within the same Church also regarding women priests?
Like we already have with the Eastern tradition of married priests - and protestant married priests converting and becoming Roman Catholic priests.
So that those (I among them) who long for Catholic women to be welcomed as priests - and those who don't - could agree on disagreeing - but allow both views and practices to coexist under the same roof.
It could even be a separate rite within the Church - perhaps called "the ancient rite" since it's the oldest tradition we have - but coexisting with later developments.
I may be naïve, but think we'd learn a whole lot from that. And that the Church would blossom in a new and fruitful way....
It's interesting to compare it with the question about reopening the deaconate for women - which is seen as a matter of practice which isn't "finally" decided about yet.
How could there be such a huge difference between two steps of ordination?
