Published in Movement Magazine: Journal of the Student
Christian Movement of Britain and Ireland, in a special supplement “Why Men Priests” edited by Mary
Condren, (Dublin: SCM Publications,
1977): pp 8- 10).
You have to taste life, a real taste, bitter and sweet together before
you can celebrate life. This seems plain fact, truth of the soul, on the face
of it. But what to make of all those liturgical experts who year after year,
gather to tell one and all what motions to go through, and when and why, around
the cold altars?
The dominant
mood, in public and private, in church and state, is something deeper than
depression; a stupefaction. People go in circles, sleep walk, blank faced.
There are no maps. Most plod along in the old track, interminably. Or they go
where forbidden. The old taboos fall in the name of freedom, sexual or
psychological, a kind of mauve scented slavery. And Big Bro grins his wolfish
grin.
Women who want to
enter the priesthood, or who are already ordained, have at least some inkling
of the stalemate within the ranks. The truth of being woman is a good boot camp
for being a nobody; in culture, in church. And ‘nobody’, ‘non person’ is a good
definition of a priest today, female or male, given both church and culture.
Properly, soberly understood. Some say the scripture says that’s where we
belong.
from left to right, Jane Via, RCWP, Janice Sevre Duszynska ARCWP, Roy Bourgeous, peaceful vigil at Vatican Embassy on Holy Thursday, 2016 |
A non person. You don’t signify. They look you over, but you don’t meet
acceptable standards. Or the big boys meet, make big decisions, plans,
projections. You aren’t invited. Or rather, you’re disinvited. World without
end.
Priesthood?
One could huff and puff about mystery, sacrament, sign, moments of grace. These
I take to be realities. I am also consoled that they are out of our grasp,
control, consuming.
And this is the
Day of the Consumer. The Day of Seizure; Don’t Forget It. Above all, don’t
forget it,
women. The caste implications, the control units, are humming. If you
come in and join up, the machos will know how to deal with that too. Which is
to say, the penal implications of the penis ought not he misread. To be
deprived is to be a ‘case’, a patient, a freak, an example. It is To Be Dealt
With.
When something is
working badly for those it was designed to work for, what solution? Commonly
culturally speaking, do more of the same. Multiplied mistakes cancel out the
initial mistake; the sublime logic. What then to say to women who want to join
the Early Mistake? mistaken identity? One has to think of starting over. But
whether women can correct the massive and multiplied misservices of the Hippos
On High—this seems to be matter for valid questioning.
We do well in a
bad time not to multiply the bads. Men I respect in the priesthood aren’t
particularly happy in thinking male. They feel miserable under the weight of
life today, just as women do. That ‘just as’ needs of course to be treated
carefully; women are outside, men in, the difference is not slight.
At the same time,
it’s worth saying that spite gets us no where. And on the question of
priesthood, the ‘in’ male and the ‘out’ female meet on a ground that’s fairly
familiar to each; one barely making it meets another not making it. To say that
life isn’t offering a great deal to any of us, doesn’t heal the long untended
wounds.
A better
beginning might be the common admission of a common plight, male and female, in
the effort to be faithful to a human vocation; violation, insults, jail, the
beetling brow of the law. Each has the right to kick and scream until we have 1) a
common share of our common patrimony (matrimony)— which certainly includes
equal access to ministry, pulpit, sacraments, right up to bishoprics and papal
tiaras (for those who feel called lo such bric-a-brac), and 2) a
vote on where and how our lives get lived, used, spent, given.
Access to the
mysteries, the good news made both good and new. Need I tell anyone we are
being drowned in bad news; certainly bad, hardly new? I think on the contrary,
good news waits on women; I think it waifs on men. It waits on each of us,
reborn.
Please don’t
wash us in hog wash. A big case is made in anti-priest-women polemics, of the
huge shift in symbols required if women are to stand at the altars. This is to
say the least, reading history through the rear view mirror. Such ‘scholarship’
is always late, always after the fact, invariably in service to special
interests. It loves to act as though those in command just arbitrarily appear
there, wide eyed innocents, open to every prevailing or contrary wind, nothing
on their minds except disinterested service of the truth. Thus the scholars
become apologists, indifferent to injustice; and the apologists become
ideologues. They prefer historical jousting to a simple look at manifest
injustice. A fascist stalling tactic.
In such
matters, it helps to stay with a few simple ideas, and see where they lead. But some
critics make history (in this case male history, a bad start) into the enemy,
adversary, obstacle to a better human arrangement. They also mistrust people,
including their fellow Christians; the majority of whom do not sit in endowed
university chairs announcing the facts of life to those ‘below.’ (A little like
life guards scanning the sea beaches from chairs the height of The Empire State
building)
Would Christians
accept the ministry of women alongside men? My experience is that immense good
will is available; people adjust quickly, even with excitement, to new
arrangements, especially when these are presented as forms of requital,
righting of wrongs. ‘How sensible; I never thought of that before’ is a common
reaction in such matters, from the pew or the church door. But from pulpit or
podium, the process is infinitely more tortuous, the minds inverted, lost. Out
of touch.
Ours was a church
of outsiders, from the start. This is often said. The implications are just as
often ignored or sidestepped; because the ‘outside’ character of our beginnings
is of course, taught by insiders.
Still, a cold
comfort is better than none, considering common shortages. We might ponder
Jesus; who, it could be argued, is still shivering on the lintel of this or
that sublime chance! He cannot be washed hands of, he will not go away. A
perpetual embarrassment to grand and petty inquisitors alike.
In all this, it
won’t do to comfort ourselves with ‘Well in any case, it’s psychiatrically
verified that sons (daughters) always kick out the old man in order to come
into their own...’
Their own? The
old man? But Jesus didn’t come on, in the first place, as big daddy at all; but
defenceless, otherworldly, an artisan, a worker, a friend, a ne’er do well,
ambitionless really, empty of hand and pocket, a non belonger and no joiner.
It seems to
follow; all who wish to meet him must do so on his ground. He won’t come in.
Won’t be assimilated. A Jew is a Jew, take it or leave it. You want to meet
him? Step outside, into the dark. But who wants to hear such talk?
The healing of woman bent double, in Luke
13. Nuanced and delightful. I cannot for the life of me, find anyone who treats
it adequately; so here goes a try.
She was bent over, Luke says (and he ought
to know) by a diabolic spirit. Could it be that she was fated to dramatize in
her frame, the fate of women, in that culture, in every culture? No one says
so. Males write history generally; then to place things beyond doubt, they
write male commentary. But Luke steps aside from all that; or better, Jesus
does. In freedom, he walks over those puerile taboos and drawn lines. He takes
the initiative with the woman; ‘He called her over when lie saw her
condition..’ Then he ‘laid his hands on her. ‘ And simply announced her cure. She straightened up. And ‘she
gave glory to God.’ How sublime! A woman bent double (bent doubly) under the
burden of hideous culture and worse religion, is healed of this evil spirit.’
For a spirit is at work in her, not a disease; or better, a diseased spirit.
The culture, the religion, are rightly regarded by Jesus as demonic. The woman
must be exorcised, of culture, or religion. Then she stands upright, then with
all her wit and will, she responds to God. Can you see her face at that moment?
The keepers of the status quo are of course
outraged. If we know anything, we know why. The miraculous is of no account to
them Religion is business. The rule is business as usual. Business is good.
But something deeper than tins is in
question; the healing of——a woman. Her face alight with hope and joy, is an
affront to their consecrated gloom, the atmosphere of a sanctuary which is a
counting house.
Would they, have struck back with such
irrational fury, had a man been healed under the same circumstances? One is
allowed to doubt it. In any case, Jesus is at pains to note that he has
liberated not a man, but a ‘daughter of Abraham’ This is her dignity. He refers
to it, against all custom. A daughter of Abraham stands, upright; stands up, as
we say, for her rights.
In the gospel, the title is unique, where
macho ‘sons of Abraham’ abound. In the Jewish bible, the title is unthinkable.
But no commentator notes these things, as far as I can find.
There’s little
doubt that when the gospels got written, people leaned quirkily, stormily, on
charisms, resonances, right speech, a passion to serve, the ictus that went
further than plod, wisdom and wisdom’s outreach. And not to forget in a
spineless time, courage, raw as a wound. Jail experience and savvy, street
smarts. The range of eye was wider then, the understanding more worldly, they
had more
news to call
good. Passion was in the air, firm claims, symbols pushed hard. It was faith
erupting into history, not airlifted; the underground was surfacing, not lava.
That passion
shaped us, But then we cooled. People
once died for beliefs;
killed others too. But we come
swaddled in something called security; from cradle clothes to shroud. And who
today dies for anything at all, anyone at all? we don’t die ‘for’; we die ‘of’;
decline and fall. The martyr is now the patient.
I believe we were
created for ecstasy. And redeemed for it, at considerable cost. Certain vagrant
unrepeatable moments of life tell us this, if we will but listen. Such moments
moreover, are clues to the whole native structure and texture of things; not
merely are such glorious fits and starts meant to ‘keep us going’, a fairly
unattractive idea; but ecstasy fuels and infuses us from the start, our proper
distillation and energy of soul. One could dream the world, the poet says, and
one could even dream the eye; but who can imagine the act of seeing? We will
never have enough of this, we will never have done with it.
If tomorrow or
the day after, women stood toe to heel, with men at the altars of the church,
and in the pulpits—what then? Would we have the same old church? We would
probably have the same old world. And that, in the old phrase, ought to give
pause.
If all those
destructive cuts and thrusts had disappeared in Christ, as Paul says they were
meant to; if all those divisions and hatreds and put downs (a few of which Paul
helped along, on the side)— if these disappeared tomorrow, and if this
vanishing of the old disorder of things were made clear heyong doubt, were
reflected in service, worship, office, dignity—why, what then? We would
probably have the same old world.
Probably. But
at le
ast one element of that world, which thinks of itself a~ drawn forth from that world, differing from that world, opposed to that world’s rule and conduct—at least that element, that yeast, that little flock, that tight knit unfearing witnessing knot of trouble makers—at least this would once have spoken and been heard, would be something to turn to. (Would, (take it or leave it), be something else than the fitful, selfish, death ridden world. And in this sense the world would no longer be the same. It would have lost all claim over us,
ast one element of that world, which thinks of itself a~ drawn forth from that world, differing from that world, opposed to that world’s rule and conduct—at least that element, that yeast, that little flock, that tight knit unfearing witnessing knot of trouble makers—at least this would once have spoken and been heard, would be something to turn to. (Would, (take it or leave it), be something else than the fitful, selfish, death ridden world. And in this sense the world would no longer be the same. It would have lost all claim over us,
There is
nothing more crushing in fact, and most revolting to the moral nostril, than a
church which ignores the outcry of the disenfranchised. We’ve all suffered
under it, our flesh torn asunder with the sense of nightmarish unreality, the
wound in the very nature of things. Let the world act in such a way, let the
megacorporations or the armed forces or the state departments act this way. It
is the way of the world; dog eat dog, devil take the hindmost. But what shall
we do, what is to become of us, when this mechanized macho spirit infests
the church and turns on us, claw and tooth? We go hoarse, talking to statuary
with chipped ears; we lose spirit, we give up. And we bring home bad news, too
often for our own good; we begin to look as though it were true.
Those who
are lucky (my own luck is good) find a few friends who help cut the knots, free
up the soul. And try as best we may, to do good work ourselves; that news gets
around.
I wish someone
could draw us out of trivia, where many are trapped. I wish someone could draw
us out of trauma. Sanity? We have a monstrous public scene, inhuman authority,
the dance of death, people reduced to a quivering jelly. And then the trivial,
much of it in the name of religion; the children’s hour at church, extended to 24 hours per day.
Adults treated like children.
I wish someone could help us get
sane, or stay sane.
I wish someone
could cleanse and heal our eyesight, help us turn our wooden heads away from
non questions, false questions, destructive questions. I mean the questions
that a straight faced straight jacketed culture keeps pushing like crazy. Like,
how many millions can we kill and still get away with it. Or, why not a bit
more experimentation on prisoners. Or, let’s go back to capital punishment,
that’ll show those muggers, crooks, killers once and for all. Or, let’s cut the
welfare system, there are too many chiselers among the poor. Or, let’s sell the
latest lethal toys to both sides of a dispute; that way, we get the buck and
they get the bang. Or, let’s get massive abortion going, there’s not enough
food and housing and jobs around for people (which is to say, for us, our
bottomless bellies)—let alone for the unborn.
The question
of alternatives today. People ask, with varying degrees of despair, where they
might go. The question is all the more grievous, as voiced by people of
stature, merit, intelligence; who love the church, long to give of their lives.
And they witness the imbecility, connivance, wheeling, base politics, neglect
of the poor, defamation of Christ’s spirit. Where to go, when in good
conscience, one can hardly stay? Up till recently, it was publicly titillating,
a story’, news, when one ‘left the church.’ Now the meaning of the phrase is
clouded, the act brings yawns of ennui.
Part of the
trouble is that so few who walked out, landed anywhere. Frying pan to fire,
they left the church and the culture swallowed them whole. It seems better as a
rule, to hang around where one was born, trying as best one may, to make it
with a few friends, family, to do what one can
in the common life; instead of launching out in the wilds, by and large more
savage and unresponsive than the church.
Unless of course, there is manifest injustice, against one’s person,
one’s convictions. In which case, one is advised to take chances, yell, loud
and clear, and walk out yelling. (But have a landing pad as well as a launching
pad!)
But the weight is in favor of
hanging on, I think.
I’m struck that
the women are battering at the church doors, just when everything in church and
culture, is announcing an ‘end of things’. Not the end of the world maybe
(though that could he argued too, soberly discussed as it is by the nuclear
bandits.) But certainly the end of the culture as we know it, as
we were born into it, and came to self understanding by resisting it...
Women have
always washed corpses and prepared them for burial. Women are in charge of
delivery rooms—in more ways than one. A metaphor for today? Women will make the
death decent and birth possible.
Sunday at St.
Stephen’s in Washington. This is one of very few parishes that took in street
people during the cruel winter months, housed and fed them. They also welcomed
the peace community from Jonah House, when they sought a place to pray and plan
for Holy Week. So it was quite natural and moving and befitting that I be
invited to preach; a homecoming.
The eucharist was
conducted by women. And they invited me to serve communion, along with several
others. Black, white, young, old; and women orchestrating, setting the tone,
announcing with authority, reverence, verve, the Lord’s body and blood.
It was
overwhelming. (Most worship today is crashingly underwhelming.) It was like a
quiet expedition of a few friends, to the other side of the moon, from this
clamorous and polluted side. Solvitur
ambulando. The absurd sexist knot of the centuries, tightened by macho
muscle and muddle, was cut.
And all so
naturally. The children wandered quietly about, the folk prayed, talked up,
sang, took
communion. No one seemed to think of anything that moment, beyond the
sublime faith and bread and death and hope that were on the air, was taking
place. I wondered if a bigger stir would have gone through us, if Jesus had
walked through the chancel door. I doubt it
How did all
this come about, how did great changes get proposed, accepted, even rejoiced
at! One could note the absence of hyperpsychologizing, expertise, sensitivity
session, expensive gurus imported for hot and heavy breathing, shrinkings,
touchy feely follies, inflations of spirit—all that plague of self indul-
gence. No, the people met with their pastor, they prayed together, struggled,
things were worked through. One notes something else. Liturgy here is no fetish
or idol; the god is not fed on the
hour, Enshrined, to deplete and suck off life energies. The same parish that
welcomes women ministers, feeds and houses the homeless and hungry. The parish
also blesses and helps those who prepare for non violence at the pentagon, in
defense of life. The main business of the parish is not maintaining a nest,
womb, space station, esthetic cave for the middle class. It is stewardship and
service, up close, day after day, blow hot, blow cold. Such conduct I think,
accords with, and confers sanity.
Thus what might be considered audacious, innovative elsewhere, is taken
for granted here. I saw no boasters in the assembly; people had the look of
those who work at their faith. And the media were absent. Two good signs.
On despair; it
is utterly rational, it can offer 50 perfectly
plausible reasons why it should be in everyone’s better home and garden.
Beginning with this one; Made In America.
Hope on the other hand, offers no reason for its existence, no come on, no
commercial. It has no goals, no five years plans, no assurance it will be
around tomorrow. IF is (like God) essentially useless. Hope will not ease life
nor make money while you sleep; it is neither an energy pill nor a (non
addictive) sleep inducer.
Despair is a
cultural conclusion, deductive. Anyone can own one; time payments, easily
arranged. Read the clock on the cover of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the
stock market report, the rising index of food costs, the........
Hope is something
else; a gift Paul calls it, a grace. Its highest expression is an irony;
‘hoping against hope.’ You take all the reasons for giving up, you admit their
weight, you grant their crushing power, you wince and cry out—then you toss
them off your back. And you go on.
I think of these
things; Philip in jail once more, a six month sentence for the Holy Week blood
pouring at the pentagon. This month is the tenth anniversary of Catonsville.
He’s now served over four years in jail, speaking truth to power. Has the
country changed, has anything changed! Have people struck out on a new path,
are they giving a new example? The questions seem to me an invitation to
despair. The proper answer is, things are worse than ever.
But that’s
beside the point. The point of hope; which is, Philip has been faithful, so
have our friends. So would I be. Hope on!
(Philip Berrigan was Dan
Berrigan’s brother who predeceased him).
No comments:
Post a Comment