Pink Smoke Gets in Your Eyes

Insight Scoop ^ | July 29, 2011 | Gail Deibler Finke

[NYer]

The woman next to me loved the title: Pink Smoke Over the Vatican. I know, because she said, "Great title!" with a knowing laugh.

There were a lot of knowing laughs in the theater Saturday morning, when the one-hour independent documentary about women's ordination had its Cincinnati debut. Perhaps the biggest came when the narrator explained that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the modern day name for The Holy Office of the Inquisition—which, though true, does sound a bit over the top. But not as over the top as clandestine ordinations on ships by incognito bishops.

And that's what the film is about: Women who want to be priests, some of whom claim to have been ordained. Sympathetic bishops, they say, have helped them. The first "ordinations" of the infamous "Danube Seven" were done in Germany in 2002—on a boat, so that they were on no bishop's territory, and in secret, so the bishops involved would not be found out. Since then, nine "ordination" ceremonies have been held, most for "priests" but many for "deacons" and ten "bishops." Because no male bishops are now involved, assuming any really were to begin with, the ceremonies are no longer secret. They are also no longer held on boats, but take place in synagogues, non-Catholic churches, and hotels. The Association of Roman Catholic Womenpriests (RCWP) claims to have 100 women in training and plans to have several more "ordinations" in 2011.

Director Jules Hart, whose previous efforts for EyeGoddessFilms include a documentary about at-risk youth "creating a totem pole as a symbol of peace and healing," says she made the film because she was captivated by the stories of Catholic women longing for the priesthood. On Saturday, about 200 people, most of them women, crowded into the 220-seat theater to hear those stories. The manager told me that made it one of the most successful private screenings the theater has ever held.

Pink Smoke is on the independent film circuit and may be coming to a theater near you. If you go, what will you see? A lot of kindly white-haired ladies, both on screen and in person—and some angry women thrown in for balance. A lot of talk about feelings and justice, a lot of half-truths and wishful thinking, and a couple of jabs at men. But it's what you won't see that is most important.

Pink Smoke Over the Vatican begins with a lot of unsupported claims that women's ordination was once accepted and common in the Church, but that evidence of this was "all but eradicated" in a Dan Brown-type conspiracy of medieval men. For the record—in case any readers are wondering—even this author with a minor in medieval history can tell you that such a thing would be logistically impossible.

The film then goes on to profile several women RCWP claims to have ordained, including one "bishop," and their supporters. Prominent among the supporters is Fr. Roy Bourgeois, the excommunicated Maryknoll priest, who shakes his finger at the mean old Church and calls the priesthood a "boys club." He is given almost as much screen time as Patricia Fresen, a cheerful, grandmotherly South African woman who claims to have been the third woman ordained a bishop. She had to leave the Dominican order after (as the Church puts it) attempting ordination and refusing to recant. Her delighted and bemused account of her episcopal "ordination" was, for me, the highlight of a surreal film experience.

But not all of the women profiled were so engaging. One was so angry she practically set the screen on fire, and another barely managed to speak as she fought back tears of sorrow for her oppressed sisters. On the whole, "priest" or layperson, the people profiled talked about their feelings. They felt called to priesthood, they felt excluded from power, they felt overjoyed at the idea of women at the altar, they felt felt FELT.

[NYer]

Were any of the “womenbishops” “ordained” by Catholic bishops?

Read the article in its entirety.

[famousdayandyear]

Sorry for being an uneducated dolt; back in the 50s/60s/70s never heard of ordination for women. I figured it’s some kind of new age feminist woman power sort of thing

[A.A. Cunningham]

that is not central to scripture

How many of the Apostles were women?

My (Protestant) minister is female, and she’s fabulous.

Has that "fabulous" woman explained what defense strategy she plans to mount during her particular judgment?

"Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

[A.A. Cunningham]

naughtyteacher

[Mrs. Don-o]

Why wouldn't they? They reject Catholic faith and morals --- and who would be surprised if unfaithful women acted on a par with unfaithful men?

Here's a proposed motto: Equal Hell for Equal Hubris.

[Elendur]

I see no point in their current dishonest path.
///
awesome post. my compliments, to you and your minister.
(i like how you say your opinion, without attacking.
i also respect my Christian brothers and sisters,
as long as they treat my church with the same respect.)

...and precisely because of your good points about honesty,
i question their true motives.

many many people split off from Lutheran churches, and form their own synod, etc.
and with the current debate in many churches,
about gay clergy, we see many congregations splitting.

so, why don’t these people, simply split, and from their own “Reformed Catholic Church” or something?
(or join an Anglican type church, which is similar, but permits women priests.)

instead, these, and other non-profits who object to church teachings, insist on calling themselves Catholic.
i think the people behind it, wish to destroy the Church,
just as many liberals in the USA with to destroy ALL Christian churches.

[Cronos]

quite possibly yes, if care is not taken at the time of entrance to the seminaries. After all we read a lot about male AND female teachers sleeping with their students.

[sigzero]

Not central to scripture? How God laid out the authority of the local church is not central? Wow, I don’t know what Bible you read. It isn’t the one God wanted you to read. “Hey God, I know your Holy word laid out that only men should be priests but well, we didn’t care and did our own thing.”

[Mrs. Don-o]

"...welcomes women as human beings of equal capacity and value to males.."

The Catholic Church considers laypeople and priests, women and men, adults and children, born and unborn, to be fundamentally equal in their human dignity. Ordaining some adult men as deacons, priests or bishops does not mark them as fundamentally superior, as you, perhaps, assume.

That mistaken assumption comes from seeing the priesthood as a status thing. And it's almost an inevitable mistake in a society where so many are concerned about status --- who can claim immunity from this tendency? --- and where so few are interested in being poor, chaste, and obedient.

Many would roll their eyes at this, which, of course, illustrates what I mean.

Yet the really important and really interesting people in Catholicism are not the priests, nor the popes, but the saints.

[Cronos]

your opinion is hardly irrelevant. On the contrary it is invaluable.

Women ministers as in preachers or teachers -- it is against what St. Paul said, there's no getting around that

HOWEVER, if you put that big statement aside (which is pretty much impossible, but just for hypothetical statement), women ministers/preachers/teachers are just as capable if not more capable than many men. In fact I'd also wager that a higher % of women get to heaven

So, ministers, administrators, I got no problem about (w.r.t. preachers, I think they're good, but Paul is clear that it's no, so I say no), but priests are something different.

the priest are those who are the instruments of the eucharist, where the REAL, TRUE body of Christ is present. This is taken as continuation of what Christ celebrated.

hence there just cannot be a priestess.

I am fully in support of nuns getting more administrative control - many convents etc. are run very well. Even maybe ministerial aspects. But as priestesses, no

[Elendur]

What I think is that His choice of twelve men was culturally determined and not spiritually directive to us. He never chose a woman as a disciple, but he also never used the Internet to spread the Word.
///
excellent point. certainly he would know, that many men back then, wouldn’t accept the authority of a woman.
makes sense...
except... He is Jesus.
he chose tax collectors, and touched lepers!
he talked to the woman at the well, and let her give him water. he intervened with the woman about to be stoned.

CLEARLY indicating, Jesus wasn’t afraid to go against the culture.
clearly indicating, that he was NOT bound, by culture.

and, even the early church followed the clear example of Jesus.
there were early church leaders that were women.
but not Priests.
so again, it is clear that it wasn’t for cultural reasons,
or women wouldn’t have been allowed to take leadership roles either.
it was only the Priesthood that was excluded.

one simply must conclude, that our Lord and Savior was FULLY aware of all of this?

and he chose only men for Apostles and the Priesthood, with laying on hands and the coming of the Holy Spirit.

[Cronos]

May I ask you a question -- I debate this with my Lutheran brethern in Christ. I like the LCMS position which is very orthodox, however I know a very Christian freeper here who is a member of the LCMC and they have pastoresses

Now my objection to him was that every Christian group that has first allowed pastoresses etc. eventually moves to having lesbian married pastoresses with gay partners.

How long has your denomination had pastoresses? And what is it's position on homosexual activity and homosexual ministers and marriage?

[Elendur]

Yet the really important and really interesting people in Catholicism are not the priests, nor the popes, but the saints.
///
beautiful beautiful post !!! (the entire thing!)

[Cronos]

If they don’t like the rules they should move on.

Quite correct. There is the ECUSA they can head off towards

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for your thoughts here, to which I would like to add what may be some useful counterpoints:

• "I think is that His choice of twelve men was culturally determined and not spiritually directive to us." It's very dubious that this choice could be described as culturally determined. All of the cultures around Israel had both priestesses and goddesses. The lack of priestesses and goddesses must have seemed jarring in ALL the Gentile cultures into which Christianity surged in its first thousand years.

• Nor was Jesus a cultural conformist, still less a cultural coward. He did plenty of things which went way past the expected bounds, when He wanted to. For instance, this business about "eating His body and drinking His blood" was naturally repellent, as well as ritually forbidden, to the Jews -- to whom He taught this doctrine forcefully and repeatedly. He wasn't crucified for playing it safe!

• "He [Jesus] never chose a woman as a disciple." This is not true at all. The Gospels mention many women disciples: the Samaritan woman at the well, Mary and Martha of Bethany (recall that He specifically commended Mary for NOT doing the housework, but rather for sitting at His feet and listening to Him, which is exactly what the word "disciple" means), Mary of Magdala (the first witness of the Resurrection, the "Apostle to the Apostles"), the women of Jerusalem who supported the mission "with their means" (i.e. with their own money.).

• "...but he also never used the Internet to spread the Word." Yet He and His Church did use women to spread the Word: from the prophetess Anna at the Temple, to Pilate's wife (the only person to speak in Jesus' defense at His trial) to Prisca, who with her husband Aquila was a noted missionary.

• " I think His non-ordination of women is a cultural detail" Actually, as I noted above, it was a counter- cultural detail: if He were only conforming to "the world," He would certainly have had priestesses, as did the Romans, the Greeks, the devotees of Mithraism, the Phoenicians: anybody who was anybody in the ancient world.

"In any case, it's not my place to make that choice for the Roman Catholic Church, nor is it the place of a few rogue "bishops" with more loyalty to politics than to the Pope. The bishops are wrong to do this without authority." Good point, there. Very good point. "This one is not far from the Kingdom." :o)

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for your gracious words :o)

[don-o]

That mistaken assumption comes from seeing the priesthood as a status thing.

I'm not sure how the Catholics do it, but I have seen an Orthodox Bishop being vested in front of the congregation. Several Deacons put various articles and bindings over his whole body while he stands mute - I think he has silent prayers to recite.

The effect is that of a surrender of the will and, if you will, laying down his life. My reaction was not "Look what an honor he has to be served like that."

No, it was "That poor man. May God have mercy on him."

[Venturer]

Head any damned place they want.

I about got a bellyful of change.

I like tradition ,and rules that stay the same for the whole game.

These nuns who want to change the rules should take their Dyke butts on down the road.

[reaganaut]

Can women be ordained to the priesthood?

- - - - -
No. And I do not get why these radical feminists are so insistent. If they want to be priestesses, leave the Holy Mother Church and become Episcopalian.

This is not about Christ, this is about them and its disgusting. I would like to see more excommunications regarding this.

[Pollster1]

I have read and re-read all of your posts, and I will give them a great deal of thought, prayer, and study (that’s my primary topic for tomorrow, although one day will not be enough time). I do not consider it productive to go into too much detail on this topic or any religious topic on any public board. While general comments like those so far are harmless, there are lurkers on both conservative political and conservative religious boards who are always happy to use what they find in discussions like this to hurt God’s church as a whole. I have no desire to give the other side ammunition. We are facing FAR greater threats today than ever in America’s history, and possibly the worst in the Church’s history.