Fr. Michael Crosby on Women's Ordination

Fr. Michael Crosby has offered a substantial riposte to criticisms of his remarks at an annual assembly of the LCWR. Recently, Bishop Leonard Blair, one of the leaders of the assessment of the LCWR undertaken by the CDF, castigated Crosby and underscored comments Crosby made in favour of women's ordination as evidence of the doctrinal unsoundness of the LCWR. Bishop Blair's report attempted to attenuate much of the fervour surrounding the Vatican rebuke of the organisation, highlighting specific instances of theological questionableness in LCWR literature and assemblies.

Crosby, a Capuchin monk, criticises Bishop Blair for extracting soundbite remarks from his address – essentially for their provocativeness – without attending to either the fuller context or those portions wherein he agreed with elements later noted in the CDF findings, such as a call for stronger attention to  issues of "life". (We, for our part, think this is an over-sold point and agree with the LCWR that they *are* 'pro-life' in the fullest sense, in that they exercise a ministry that is about the protection and dignity of all  life, especially the poor, disenfranchised, marginalised, and victims of war, poverty, disease, and an unjust penal system; this is a pro-life position that is not unduly focussed on the fetal dimension, which seems to be the sole focal point of that nomenclature for the hierarchy). At the same time, Crosby intensifies his call for a re-evaluation of the issue of the ordination of women within the church.

His arguments are significant and quite potent. We urge readers to examine the full article (as well as his website). Crosby aims at the heart of the matter, problematising the hierarchy's appeal to Scripture for the limitation of the ministry to men by Jesus, as well as relativising the firmness of tradition. (It is incontestable that Jesus surrounded himself with women, that women were part of his inner circle, and that women exercised ministerial function within the earliest era of the church. Appeal to tradition, as well, must respond to the fact that tradition has changed on many cultural points, slavery being a paramount example, such that exclusionary policies based on tradition rest on shaky ground.) We wish that Fr. Crosby had pointed out, as well, that the old defence of an exclusively male priesthood on the basis of the maleness of Jesus not only runs aground on the lack of a simultaneous requirement that the priesthood consist strictly of Jewish men (i.e., why limit the conditions based on the human constitution of Jesus to just one cultural particular?), but also fails to appreciate the substantive meaning of Jesus's humanity – it countermands the very substance of Nicene and Chalcedonian claim of Jesus's unqualified humanness.

We would remiss in failing to point out that this kerfuffle was preceded by a Vatican statement making the ordination of women a grave offence equal to sex abuse. Given the catastrophic failure of the Vatican to handle the latter issue – and the rather lack of seriousness with which it regarded such aberrant and criminal behaviour – the punitive attention now being paid to women is baffling. Why would the Vatican even want to mention these two things in the same breath? It strikes as a bungled ruse: trying to redirect public attention and opinion off of the sex abuse crisis by refocussing on the problem raised by the 'insubordinate' nuns; yet, it not only re-underlines the horrendous mismanagement of the sex abuse scandal (as well as the nefarious policies undergirding the hierarchy's actions) but also reifies the view of an authoritarian, outdated all-male religious oligarchy attempting to secure a grip on absolute and secretive power by asserting itself against women who won't mind their place.

Chris Hedges' Capitalism and Sacrifice

Intrepid reporter Chris Hedges recently appeared on Bill Moyers' programme to discuss the problem of the destructive nature of unfettered capitalism. Hedges presents a view of what unblinkered "free-market" capitalism has wrought on the American landscape. [Hedges' appearance is in support of his recent book, Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt.] It is an earnest and important discussion that has radical implications for the future of American society as a whole.

Hedges is also the author of several other important books, such as Death of the Liberal Class and I Don't Believe in Athiests.

Hedges' appearance can be seen here.

'Dark Knight' Shootings

We pray for the victims and families of those affected by the tragic shootings this weekend in Aurora, CO. A heavily armed gunman shot numerous patrons at a midnight screening of the eagerly-awaited summer film, The Dark Knight Rises. Many people were injured and last reports confirmed at least a dozen were killed by the assailant, including a small child.

Kyrie Eleison. Christe Eleison. Kyrie Eleison.

We grieve with the families who lost loved ones and with those recovering from the senseless violence of this event.

We also want to echo, from a Catholic perspective, the recent words of Fr. James Martin, SJ. In a piece in America magazine, Fr. Jim said this:

That is why I believe that gun control is a religious issue.  It is as much of a “life issue” or a “pro-life issue,” as some religious people say, as is abortion, euthanasia or the death penalty (all of which I am against), and programs that provide the poor with the same access to basic human needs as the wealthy (which I am for).  There is a “consistent ethic of life” that views all these issues as linked, because they are.

All of these issues, at their heart, are about the sanctity of all human life, no matter who that person is, no matter at what stage of life that person is passing through, and no matter whether or not we think that the person is “deserving” of life. 

These shootings would not have happened if the shooter did not have such easy access to firearms and ammunition.  So religious people need to be invited to meditate on the connection between the more traditional “life issues” and the overdue need for stricter gun control.  The oft-cited argument, “Guns don’t kill people, people do,” seems unconvincing.  Of course people kill people; as people also procure abortions, decide on euthanasia and administer the death penalty.  Human beings are agents in all these matters.  The question is not so much how lives are ended, but how to make it more difficult to end lives. 

Pro-life religious people need to consider how it might be made more difficult for people to procure weapons that are not designed for sport or hunting or self-defense.  Why would anyone be opposed to firmer gun control, or, to put it more plainly, laws that would make it more difficult for mass murders to occur?  If one protests against abortions clinics because they facilitate the taking of human life, why not protest against largely unregulated suppliers of firearms because they facilitate the taking of human life as well?    

Well said, Fr. Jim. To be pro-life, we must really, truly be zealous against the commercialisation of death, which includes a virtually unregulated market of guns. That this individual had access to assault weapons, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and highly sophisticated technical equipment is an abomination. This was an unmitigated act of terrorism – even though the American press would not call it such (which may have to do with the lack of a racial or ethnic profile of the perpetrator).

An event of this kind must give us pause to reflect upon the kind of society of we wish to be and what our values are. (Those wishing to defend these sorts of weapons –and concomitantly the damage they inflict when they are employed within the society that permits them – on the basis of the 2nd Amendment, now must respond to the rather salient riposte of actor Jason Alexander.)

A Catholic Response to Doug Wilson's 'Rape as Sex'

Something of a furore is buzzing about in the evangelical world. Over at the Gospel Coalition, a haven for arch-Calvinists, a blogger has created a bit of storm. In a post critiquing the recent mega-bestselling piece of erotica, 50 Shades of Grey, Jared Wilson has raised serious ire through his appropriation of a quote by Christian theonomist (and confirmed apologist for the 'humanity' of the antebellum Southern system of chattel slavery), Douglas Wilson.

The offending bit, which comes from a chapter on rape in one of Wilson's books, goes like this:

When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.

 Note here the language of domination, power, and aggression in connection to the role of the man, and the language of passivity, submission, and subordination in connection to the role of the woman. This is, of course, blatant patriarchy and downright misogyny. In an effort to buttress evangelical notions of "complementarianism", which is nothing less than asymmetrical hierarchy and male dominated authoritarianism, the Wilsons have extended their assumptions of female inferiority beyond just the question of who 'rules' the house to who rules in the bedroom too. The upshot, as Wilson continues his quotation of Wilson, is that 'True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity.' In other words, the only pattern of male-female relationships, even in regard to the mutual marital act, is an asymmetrical one of authority and submission, dominance and surrender. One wonders, very seriously, how any act of sexuality between husband and wife can be mutual and consensual within this paradigm? Even more, how does this square with the biblical witness of such texts like Song of Songs (where the Bride is quite forthrightly the initiator of amorous activity), 1 Cor., and Eph?


Other evangelicals have been fairly quick to respond. Major bloggers like Rachel Held Evans, Daniel Kirk, Scot McKnight, and Mike Bird have posted.


The Catholic view of this is fairly simple to summarise – not only are men and women equal in all respects, such that any relationship is characterised by the mutual submission called for the Apostle Paul, but most especially in the context of a sexual relationship both partners are responsible to each other in a mutual, reciprocal exchange. Pope John Paul II, in his widely known book, Theology of the Body, outlines this very well. For Catholicism, sex is not an act that is characterised by such unequal (and frankly appalling) notions of dominance and power, surrender and passivity. Rather, both give and receive from each other in mutual, equal reciprocity. Further, although recently castigated by the CDF for a few statements on masturbation and same-sex relationships, Sr. Margaret Farley's book, Just Love, reinforces the basic insight of John Paul II on this issue, providing an ethical framework based on justice and love for the right expression of sexuality in all contexts.


While we are at some remove from this discussion, we would join the chorus of those calling for the removal of the offending post from the website. It most unbecoming that such would be in anyway attached to a forum that claims the gospel. This is decidedly no gospel – certainly not for women, and, we would argue, it is not a word of liberation for men either. In fact, this kind of blatant misogyny harms men and women in strong measure, and besmirches the name of the gospel that is supposed to free us from just this kind of bondage.

Why We Stand with the Nuns

The Centre for American Progress has a great article on the recent 'Nuns on a Bus' tour, in which a group of women religious toured several states to bring attention to the cruelty of the cuts to programmes for the poor in the US House budget drafted by the Catholic Rep., Paul Ryan.

Ryan's budget, which enacts deep cuts to important social programmes to subsidise quite significant tax benefits to the wealthy, was supposedly based on his 'Catholic' principles, but owes near exclusive allegiance to Ayn Rand; very happily, the American Catholic bishops (USCCB) issued a strong rebuke to Ryan for his abandonment of Catholic social teaching.

American nuns, recently investigated and rebuked by the Vatican, in particular for 'spending too much time on issues of social justice and health care' and not enough on 'abortion and proper Catholic doctrine,' have taken up the issue with great verve. We applaud the sisters for their courage and prophetic witness for the least. Carry on, sisters!

The article can be found here.

Radical Catholicism and Ross Douthat's Liberal Christianity

A recent editorial in the New York Times by Ross Douthat, titled "Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?", has been making the rounds. In this Douthat, commenting on the General Convention of the Episcopal Church where it approved a rubric for blessing same-sex couples, holds up the Episcopal Church as exemplary of two significant trends: (1) the capitulation of liberal Christianity to cultural norms and patterns; and (2) the radical decline of attendance and membership in liberal-leaning churches. 


For Douthat these two trends are not unrelated but rather are intrinsically connected. Douthat argues, in fact, that the pattern of parishioner exodus has been caused by the accommodationist spirit of liberal Christianity; the Episcopal Church is par excellence of this for Douthat, as it has experienced a steep membership decline of roughly 23% over the past decade, which Douthat ties explicitly to its departure from traditional orthodoxy and its drift into "one of the most self-consciously progressive Christian bodies in the United States." [Douthat's lifting up of the Episcopal Church was preceded by a rather scathing, over-the-top commentary in the Wall Street Journal.]

But, the Episcopal Church is not alone in this, as Douthat points out that virtually across the board all the mainline denominations have experienced severe drops in attendance – the sole standouts being those "politically conservative" but "theologically shallow" congregations (presumably the megachurches populating the evangelical Protestant world).

There are, in Douthat's thesis, two underlying premises that determine his analysis of the present situation. First, Douthat assumes a fundamental cultural dividing line beginning in the 1960s, whereby society as a whole and American Christianity in particular were thrown into chaos on account of the upheavals in social, political, and sexual norms – in other words, the "relativism" injected into those discussions is the ground-point of the divisiveness on display in contemporary culture. [Of course, absent from Douthat's editorial is any mention of the machinations and engineering of the hard-rightwing, which has turned the screws intensely on the politicalisation of religion and the hardening of partisan rhetoric.]

Second, and related to the first assumption, is Douthat's conviction that Christian liberalism has become unmoored from its previous grounding in a robust, conversionist faith and adherence to doctrine, as exemplified by the Social Gospel movement and the civil rights movement [examples of a progressive social vision emanating from deep personal and biblical spirituality and practise, as documented by Gary Dorrien]; contemporary liberalism, by contrast, has jettisoned the commitment to the bible, prayer, and doctrine, opting instead for political and cultural "relevance."

As such, contemporary liberalism personifies the relativistic spirit of the radical upheavals of the 1960s and exchanges theological soundness for whatever current political flavour is on offer in wider society. The result, in Douthat's opinion, is the abandonment of liberal houses of worship en masse – their cavorting after relevance has made them irrelevant by and large.

The one bright spot for Douthat is the current state of the Catholic Church. One hears him breathe a sigh of relief that Benedict XVI has not capitulated to the demands of the liberal wing of the Catholic Church, for that would result in the same calamity that has befallen the others. Douthat, in fact, takes it as a sign of the strength of the Catholic Church, particularly its on-going adherence to "traditional faith" that the Vatican has reprimanded the American women religious.

The rebuke of the nuns, moreover, represents for Douthat an attempt to save them from disappearing altogether. No word, of course, on the fact that American Catholicism, bracketing the increases due to immigration, has experienced a fairly analogous decline itself – perhaps due to the nefarious business of clerical abuse of children and the collusion of bishops in covering up the crimes. [Simultaneously, whilst making moderate repairs of its image in the wake of that scandal, the bishops are now engaging in a partisan fight against a health-care act that is beneficial to society, over an issue that is overwhelmingly favoured and practised by a vast majority of Catholics, and now appear to be intractably authoritarian vis-a-vis one of the most respected of figures – nuns. Some think this might be a way of turning attention away from that 'other' matter.]

Of course, Douthat is not without his critics. A British theologian, Steve Holmes, for instance, argues that the social activism Douthat notes in the Social Gospel movement, etc., is more neatly rooted in older evangelicalism – the sort responsible for the abolitionist movement in England and America and the like. [A few other evangelicals have responded in kind to the piece.] American writer and historian Diana Butler Bass offered a sound riposte to Douthat on behalf of liberal Christianity, arguing, in effect, that it is the spirituality and practises cultivated in more progressive communities that may be the thing that keeps Christianity alive in the wake of full-scale decline across the board. Butler's analysis is buttressed by statistics that give the lie to a one-sided decline in attendance of religious worship.

What is evident is that virtually all denominations – Protestant and Catholic – are losing members, especially in the coveted demographic of young and middle-aged adults. It is, therefore, decidedly not the net result for only liberal Christianity nor can the blame be begged simply upon a boogey liberalism. The latter, quite pointedly, raises the question of what exactly Douthat even means by liberalism. He does not offer a definition of liberalism nor does his distinguish theological liberalism from political liberalism.

What do we say to this? Well, we do agree with one point and it is a point that is more implicit than explicit: that liberalism, insofar as that is understood to be a progressive social-political outlook, not only should be cultivated but that it is compatible with orthodox religious faith. In fact, we would say that orthodoxy demands progressive social and political values. This, we believe, is deeply rooted in our Catholic tradition in several ways.

First, the biblical witness is concretely clear: it is extraordinarily difficult to read the OT prophets and not feel the intense excoriation of the society's mistreatment and exploitation of the poor and marginalised – that, virtually more than anything else, is the subject of the divine judgment of the nation; such is carried forward in the teaching and ministry of Jesus, as seen in the sermon on the mount or the fleeting episode of the encounter with rich young man and the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. [The first Christian communities, as seen in Acts, even abandoned the notion of private property, and ordained a diaconate specifically devoted to the most vulnerable of society – the elderly and orphans.]

Second, the patristic tradition embodies this same concern in its teaching and action. Many of the ancient Christian leaders were instrumental in the establishment of hospitals, relief for the impoverished, and securing the release of slaves and prisoners. Even more, their sermons, such as those of Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, offer stinging, radical critiques of wealth and the economic and social injustice inflicted upon the poor and oppressed of society.

Third, Catholic social teaching – much like the activist evangelicalism of the 19th c. – demands not only recognition of the fundamental dignity and equality of all persons, but their right to justice, to labour, to fair wages, to proper health and nutrition. As demonstrated by papal encyclicals like Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum and Benedict XVI's Caritas in veritate, these are universal rights for all and it demands that we work for structures that enable and guarantee those rights.

Fourth, the contemporary witness of various movements within the Catholic tradition, such as the French worker-priest movement, the Catholic worker movement of the US (started by Dorothy Day), and the various iterations of liberation theology provide ample witness to a progressive vision grounded in a deep, doctrinally rich faith – orthodoxy as the impulse to orthopraxy. That liberation theology – frequently castigated by the American right-wing – is consonant with the "traditional faith" of the Vatican, as extolled by Douthat, can be seen quite clearly in the joint publication by Gustavo Gutiérrez and Bernard Müller; Müller has just recently been appointed by Benedict XVI to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, his own previous post prior to his ascendancy to the Chair of Peter.

Moreover, we would say that the creedal tradition itself is substantially radical. The Nicene confession of the consubstantiality (homoousious) of Jesus Christ – that Christ is fully God and fully human – is a radical confession of the unbrokered and unqualified incarnation of the Word. It is all-inclusive in that the divine deigns to inhabit and unite with that which is created, in just such a way that the whole notion of creatureliness is transformed – and redefined – by this very event.

In fact, we have no anthropology or politics apart from this, even more from the ascension and reign of Christ himself. (One could argue, as well, that this has not just human significant, but environmental implications too, particularly when understood in conjunction with the cosmic christology bound up with this, so beloved by Benedict himself). We would say here that any attempt to leverage an anthropology, an ethics, or politics outside of this, particularly to exclude "others" or deny justice, whether through economic, social, religious, political, educational, et al, systems, is to countermand the gospel and the creed we confess every week.

What we have said, of course, will give rise to questions about issues like same-sex marriage or the debate over the mandate in the recent health-care legislation. We contend that these cannot be answered in the standard way – which, in current Catholic discussion, involves an end-run around the central points we've laid to take recourse in natural law or an apologetic based contextually un-attuned readings of isolated bible passages. We will, of course, have more to say about that in future posts; however, as a way of pointing towards constructive action, we would direct readers to this article by an Orthodox theologian, who makes the case for why [o]rthodox Christians should not feel compelled to vote in a way dictated by the prevailing conservative wind of the hierarchy. It is, for us, a satisfactory answer to this kind of question in particular, that is, what can we do in the voting booth. There's more to be said about we should be doing in the church and the world. It should be noted, too, that in saying this it is not a seeking out of "relevance" or cultural accommodation that we are after, but rather fidelity to the gospel and tradition, which, we'd offer, are always surprisingly ahead of us.

Welcome to Radical Catholicism

This blog is a site of exploration. Here we will be examining Catholic life, theology, spirituality, and practise. I have titled the blog as Radical Catholicism in reference to a few things. First, radical denotes the key quality of the Christian gospel, in that it is a critical challenge, a question mark, an uncontrolled calling placed upon all – something very much like that which is witnessed to by the desert mothers and fathers who left behind everything for a life of dispossession and prayer. Rooted in the apocalyptic death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, it is a transvaluation of being, life, and practice.

That 'radical' qualifies the word 'Catholicism' here is to gesture to what I take to be the form or shape of life together in the gospel, which is to say that it is catholicos, universal. It is Catholic in the ecclesial sense, mainly on the basis of the affiliation of the moderator to the Roman Catholic Church; that will, obviously, inform the basic flavour of the explorations here: what is Catholic theology and practice? Of course, at the same time, the great stream of the 'catholic' tradition expressed in the east (i.e., Orthodoxy) and even the churches of the Protestant world will be the subject of much the conversation. In this, we will attend to the wisdom of the mothers and fathers across the spectrum of East and West, with special attention to the patristic and medieval traditions, the theologians, monastics, mystics, and anchorites.

Radical Catholicism, even more, is an expression of a commitment to critical questioning of how catholic life together is to be lived and catholic theology practised; this will be conducted along several horizons: what is the gospel of Christ and how do we live faithfully in accordance with that? What does the living tradition of the church have to say to us in the contemporary world? What does it mean to be formed and shaped by the liturgy and sacraments of the church? What is the life of prayer and how do we practise it? What does the gospel mean for the world and how are we to serve this? These questions, particularly the latter, have significant consequences on a host of issues. At times, the answers may take us in unexpected directions, especially in regard to social, political, and economic structures. What does justice, righteousness, equality, and hope look like as unleashed by the cross, resurrection, and reign of Christ? We will explore such things in dialogue with the great thinkers of the church – from the NT, patristics, and medievals to the modern theologians of the 20th c., from the Council of Nicaea to Vatican II.