Here is the verse that was quoted so often at the Plenary Council, Gal 3:28
“And there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
 
It was quoted with an emphasis on the equality of all the baptised, with a view to implying that if all are equal, then all roles in the Church should be open to all people, including priesthood.
 
The equality of all persons before God is not in dispute, but the deduction that this means equality of roles is.
 
Firstly we need to remember that St Paul is writing this letter to the Galatians, someone who has studied the Old Testament with particular diligence and who is very familiar with the worship conducted in the Temple at Jerusalem.
 
Therefore when he talks about distinctions between Jew and Greek, male and female, he expects his audience to bring to mind that in the Temple at Jerusalem there was a court of the Gentiles which excluded those of gentile birth from entering the inner court. Also in that Temple is a court of the women which excluded them from the inner court too.
 
Slave and free likely refers to the freedom a non-slave possesses to travel to the Temple at any time. A slave however can only go to the Temple when the person who owns him/her permits it.
 
In Christ Jesus then, everyone has equal access to God the Father, everyone may approach Him in the inner court.
 
These distinctions with regard to Temple worship are man-made. Therefore they can be changed, and in Christ Jesus they are.
 
It is noteworthy that St Paul did not add ‘priest and non-priest’ to that list.
 
A priest has access to the Holy of Holies, and only a priest, by the eternal decree of God about the sons of Aaron, recorded in the Old Testament. That’s unchangeable.
 
During the history of Israel, God underlined the seriousness of that eternal degree several times.
 
The sons of Aaron were under strict obedience to fulfill what God had decreed. In Leviticus 10:1 we find that when two of Aaron’s sons took a shortcut and filled their censers with ordinary fire instead of the fire from the altar, they died immediately.
 
In 2 Sam 6:6-7 we see a Levite, who as a Levite had permission to handle and carry the holy things in prescribed manner, reach out with his hand to touch the ark of the covenant when it seemed unsteady. He died immediately because he had not touched the ark in the prescribed manner.
 
But the really big story is in Numbers 16. Here we have a group of Levites and a few non-Levites complaining that since the whole community is consecrated to God why do Moses and Aaron have extra special roles and not others? This is exactly the same argument those working towards a pathway to the priestly ordination of women were using at the Plenary Council.
 
The complainers in Numbers 16 asked, ‘The whole community and all its members are consecrated, and the Lord God lives among them. Why set yourselves higher than the community of the Lord God?’
 
Moses answered them, ‘the Lord God will reveal who is His, who is the consecrated man that He will allow to come near Him. The one He allows to come near is the one He has chosen.’
 
In effect, this is God’s choice, not ours, and this depends on God’s permission, not ours.
 
As the Letter to the Hebrews reminds us in Heb 5:4, ‘No one takes this honour on himself, but each one is called by God, as Aaron was.’.
 
As emphasis, fire came down from heaven to consume the complainers who wanted to assume the priesthood, and the earth opened up and swallowed their tents and families alive.
 
No one in Israel tried that argument again!
 
You may retort, but the 12 apostles of Jesus weren’t priests or levites. Shocking isn’t it?! Theirs is a priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek not according to the order of Aaron. Melchizedek was chosen directly by God, around the time of Abraham, and in this different non-temple order of priesthood Melchizedek offered to God bread and wine. Even more shocking, the order of Melchizedek isn’t a hereditary priesthood.
 
This is God’s direct choice, His calling, which needs to be both responded to and discerned.
 
Remember, this about God’s own decrees, not about the kind of human laws that can change from time to time.
 
When the Church confirms that she has no authority to ordain women, that’s what the Church means, ie. that this particular authority is reserved to God alone, with Whom there is no such thing as alteration, no shadow of a change. James 1:17
 
It’s one of those things that you can accept, or reject, but which you can’t change.
 
So although each of us has equal dignity before God, and everyone has access to His Heart, we do have different roles given by Him.
 
As a cautionary tale, lest anyone think those roles are interchangeable, have a look at 1 Maccabees 5. The desecrated Temple has finally been cleaned and purified, and the temple sacrifices have resumed. Much effort, much prayer and many battles made that possible. Now the threats to Israel have multiplied. Because there are threats in both Galilee and Gilead the warriors in Israel form into two groups to go and meet those challenges. But the Temple they have all fought so hard for, it needs protecting too. So a priest and a community leader were placed in charge of the remnant in Jerusalem, of the people, levites and of the remaining warriors left behind. These were placed under obedience to guard the temple and to not go and fight the enemy until the other two groups of warriors returned. However the desire for military glory tempted them, they left their post at the temple, went out against the enemy, and got completely slaughtered.
 
The role of warrior was important. The role of guarding the temple was important. Both were needed. When those with the role of guard wanted to take on the role of warrior, disaster followed.
 
Heed this, please! It is God’s choice alone who is to undertake the role of priest. If that is not the role God has given to you, then do not set your heart upon it. Only disaster will result if you insist on a role that God has not given to you.
 
If we were not so scripturally illiterate and not so lacking in reverence towards the Lord God, we would see how groundless the push for the priestly ordination of women really is.
 
May God help us in His mercy, lest we perish at the frown of His face. Amen.

The second and final assembly of the 5th Plenary Council of Australia is still at the half-way mark, following a disruptive but seemingly fruitful day on 6 July. Since the last blog-post I have watched the Mass for the Church from last night, and the Plenary tracker episode from last night, as well as many religious blogs from 6 July and 7 July, and the livestreamed morning session. Due to the events of yesterday I didn’t expect any voting results to be released at 1pm, so I didn’t go looking for them.
 
The first official media briefing I was aware of happened on Monday evening and was published on YouTube. I kept looking for more media briefings, in the obvious places, and found nothing until I heard a remark about Archbishop Coleridge talking to the press. Eventually I looked at Facebook, and on the Plenary Council page found two official media briefings published via Facebook live. It makes no sense to me either. But both Tuesday’s and Wednesday’s media briefings were worth viewing, which I did back to back last night.
 
One of them mentioned the wording of the welcome to country from Tuesday morning, which was particularly good:
“We pay respect to elders past, present and their youth, as they hold the dreams of the future. I also extend that respect and acknowledgment to all of you today and the lands from which we’re all gathered, and also to your ancestors and where you’ve come from as well.”
 
Archbishop Coleridge re-quoted from his ACBC homily of 27 Nov 2018:
“According to the papal preacher Raniero Cantalamessa, “ordination provides the authorization to do certain things but not necessarily the authority to do them. It assures the apostolic succession but not necessarily apostolic success”. It’s the Spirit who provides the authority and the success.”
 
The point being that apostolic success is dependent on people with the right charisms of the Holy Spirit collaborating together on the right projects. Just because someone is ordained doesn’t mean they have charisms of preaching, pastoring and administration. Since the gifting of charisms depends on baptism (and confirmation) and not ordination, recognition of this could be the path forward for new governance models and the role of women in the church.
 
One of the outcomes from yesterday is an understanding that the Yes with reservations is suitable for collaborative votes, but it is not suitable for deliberative votes. Reading between the lines, one has to wonder whether all the bishops were listening when the assembly was told Yes with reservation votes would be counted as No votes. Because a special meeting of bishops was held behind closed doors, we are not privy to why some of them voted No and some of them voted Yes with reservations.
 
Another outcome from yesterday is that Motion 4, the one about women in the church, will be adjusted by a panel of 4, two members and two experts, and then the votes on that revised motion will be held on Friday.
 
Subsequently the two motions that didn’t get dealt with yesterday have to be squeezed in between today and tomorrow. But even that has necessitated a better outcome. Decisions have been made to make the time set aside for spiritual conversations shorter, more streamlined and focused on the motions; and a more iterative and real-time consultative process has been sketched out for the rest of the second assembly, with each motion taking as long as it takes to get it right – or so we hope.
 
In last night’s Plenary Tracker Mary Coloe had useful input. She reminded us that there are parts of discernment that happen before a decision, and there’s discernment that happens after a decision. When a decision is made and general discomfort results, like happened yesterday, then general agreement is that the wrong decision was made and a better one needs to be found. It is quite normal that sometimes discernment is clearer after a decision is made.
 
I feel I need to declare that many of the conclusions made by John Warhurst in his media release at 6.39pm yesterday don’t hold water; and will go through some of them in detail. I accept that it was probably written in haste, and under strong emotions, and used provocative language like ‘failure, desperately, stunning blow’ etc, and which he will likely regret writing for a long time to come.
 
The vote was not a failure to give unqualified recognition to women in the Church. Actually the motion was too big and too unwieldy. Even the large number of Yes with reservations votes from the non-bishops bears out that truth.
 
I can’t see how a rejection of contemporary values matters at all. Ditto ‘reflecting the will of the people’. We believe in a God, as James 1:17 says, with Whom there is no such thing as alteration, no shadow of a change. It is His will, and His will alone that we desire to discern and implement. Finding ways to express that holy will which enable each culture and epoch to take that holy will on board is the perennial challenge of the Church throughout the ages.
 
Warhurst wrote ‘the church desperately needs women in leadership roles at a time with the number of male priests is draining away’. Women in leadership roles has absolutely nothing to do with the numbers of male priests, absolutely nothing. The sense I’ve picked up from many plenary council members on this topic is that this is far more about baptismal dignity and opportunities for collaboration in decision making than anything else. That there are women in rural and remote areas who are undertaking various pastoral tasks and desire to be included in decision making regarding those under their care is the issue, not that the situation is due to absence of priests in those areas.
 
He also wrote the following which seems patently unfair: ‘But it is the refusal of many bishops to consider discussing with women the creation of women deacons – should Pope Francis authorise such a ministry – that is so disheartening’. That this part of the motion is even on the table, approved by both steering committee and drafting committee for deliberation, and not expunged after amendments to the draft motions were sought is prima facie evidence that the bishops are more than happy to discuss and debate this part of the motion.
 
Warhurst also frames the non-approved vote as ‘a blow to hopes raised that in the wake of the disastrous child sexual abuse royal commission that promised church reforms that would mean no more "business as usual” ’. If you think by the mere placement of women in decision making bodies the conditions for future abuse evaporate – have I got news for you! For abuse to happen, and for abuse to continue, there is a degree to which women are enablers viz young woman goes to older woman to report abuse from a significant person in the older woman’s life, and the initial and perhaps ongoing response is disbelief. It happens. Putting women in decision making positions is not going to stop abuse. Some argue that having a woman present will reduce clericalism, but we’ve all seen clericalized women, with paid professional careers in diocesan curia and similar places and their job description/allegiance is to bishop and curia, not to pew-sitters and whistle blowers.
 
The non-approved vote on motion 4 does not mean it will be ‘business as usual’ after the second assembly ends. That’s grossly unfair. To have even had these discussions at plenary council level and to have had broad consensus, as evidenced by between half and two-thirds voting Yes at both consultative votes and deliberate votes, means that business will most definitely not be ‘as usual’. Through all the sharing and listening, as uncomfortable and intense as it has sometimes been, there has been a massive shift in collective thinking. How that works itself out in practice – it’s too soon to tell – but to deny that it has happened is unjust.
 
Compared to previous days, online commentary has been abundant. Whether that’s because of today’s controversies or because it has taken this long to get a sense of how the second assembly is going, or both, is up for debate. Daniel Ang and Philippa Martyr have made excellent written contributions to the wider discussion, and I’ll now present some of them, two from each, albeit they are paraphrased and edited.
 
Daniel Ang. 6 July. Edited.
Tensions within the Council are not only the result of issues with the process of the Council itself but also with the distinct ecclesiological imaginations at play among members - with at least two primary dialects evident on the Council floor. One dialect focusses largely on the outward organisation or ‘form’ of the Church and the re-distribution of its goods. The other sets its focus upon the inner life of faith, on the common need for conversion and the call to evangelisation.
 
History has shown us that when the organisation and practical actions of ecclesial bodies lose contact with the Catholic tradition, its teachings and sacramental life, they not only diminish but ultimately disintegrate.
 
Philippa Martyr. 7 July. Paraphrased and edited.
As a woman with work and study commitments, with care commitments to elderly parents and to a teenager, it wasn’t possible for me to become a Plenary Council member because I didn’t have months to spend with ‘gifted sharers of their personal journeys’. In the absence of ordinary people like me, a group of privileged women and their man friends have tried to impose their pet projects on the Plenary Council.
The papal commission on the diaconate has two broad options. It can uphold Vatican II’s understanding of the diaconate as part of a continuum of Holy Orders. This means it’s not open to women. Or it can go back to a more primitive understanding of the diaconate. This means uncoupling it from the priesthood altogether, and if ordained at all, ordained in a way that separates them completely from the priesthood.
 
Lest anyone erroneously think that deacons have any part in diocesan decision making, Bishop Mark Edwards recalled his experience of being a deacon as having no decision making input at all. A deacon’s role is to serve the Word of God, to serve the poor, and to do whatever the bishop wants them to do. It’s far from glamorous.
 
Bishop Edwards also shared how a brave table member was willing to call other table members to a higher understanding than the general consensus of opinion. This person shared that evangelisation, is offering someone something precious we have found, it is not focused on getting more rear ends on pews. Facilitating someone’s response to Jesus and an encounter with Him has to take primacy; whether or not that leads to them attending some kind of worship in person is up to them.
 
In one sense it was ‘business as usual’ on Wednesday evening at Mass. Zero mention was made of any of the tumultuous day that had been. Even though it appears to be standard operating procedure, it is flawed. It is so much better to acknowledge that there has been turmoil, to even offer the opportunity for sign of peace-like gestures of solidarity to each other, and to then invite everyone to leave their cares and concerns behind for this brief hour, and to focus together on God. Ignoring it makes it worse. Ignoring it induces anger.
 
I did read some commentary expositing that with the explicit mention of public juridic persons in some of the earlier motions that this effectively means that leadership of socials services, hospitals, educational institutions etc have a place at the decision making table alongside bishops, clerics and religious. That feels like a sea-change with monumental implications, although no-one would doubt that better collaboration among them would be a very good thing.
 
There are a few notions from last night’s plenary tracker that deserve mention:
Mary Coloe said she’d be quite happy to receive authorization to preach (she does regularly train seminarians in the arts of preaching) and sees no reason why authorization to preach cannot be separated from ordination.
Mary also spoke about the disparity of resources devoted to seminary education compared with resources devoted to non-seminary education. Studying theology at any level, if you are not a seminarian or already ordained, is a voluntary thing, depending on person’s interests, ability and the depth of his or her pockets -since it is quite expensive.
 
Then Genevieve shared from the heart about the many years she has served as a reader at Mass, and how demoralizing it has been to have to accept that her contributions have not been valued because she’s been seen as a lesser substitute because a male reader wasn’t available. With Pope Francis recently opening up the ministry of lector to women, this has thankfully changed. But the years of hurt remain. Been there, done that, still bear the scars. I stepped down from public proclamation of the scriptures some 20 years ago, firstly due to a perception that I was too visible for some people (when actually it was willingness and ability to step in at short notice), and secondly, because if being a lector was only officially for men, I’d better step down and hope and pray that some men stepped up. I had also noted that when a man speaks publicly the message is unimpeded. When a woman speaks publicly the message is always impeded by what she is wearing, despite her very best efforts to the contrary.
 
Someone has to lead and someone has to follow, otherwise unified action isn’t possible. But is leadership of the first among equals variety, which actively consults on decision making unless dire urgency makes that impractical. That’s the kind of leadership that makes marriage, parishes and dioceses work. In biblical and Christian history that kind of community leadership has been given by God to male priests and male elders. Exceptions to that rule, like Judith and Deborah, are quite rare.
 
Be careful what you attribute to the Holy Spirit. Was yesterday’s impasse due to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Or was it due to the clout of the C.C.C.G * and the emotive language they’ve been using? Or was it a bit of both? There’s been so much whipping up of emotions, and so much, ‘we want this or else’, that discussion failed at times to be collaborative and became combative. Singularly lacking has been efforts to help those with hurts and grievances to come to peace and healing through forgiving the perpetrators (real and/or perceived) for the sources of those hurts and grievances. True clarity cannot come if there are blockages to love and emotional baggage in the way. Very welcome would be any kind of prayer for healing of hurts, and any gestures of mutual reconciliation- and for first nations as much as for abuse survivors as much as for women and men who carry wounds due to sub-optimal clerical behaviour.
 
No decisions about us without us: that’s women, first nations, disabled, homeless, those with non-standard sexual orientations etc. Sadly that seeking of input from the people affected directly by the decisions has been rare. Witness how often we put in toilet facilities with wheelchair access and then fail to provide any ramps to help those with wheelchairs get to those toilets. This is about moving towards a collaborative model for decision making, and to an extent it is about justice. However we have to acknowledge that the decision making buck has to stop somewhere, and that’s the demanding role given by God to the clergy.
 
Thankfully Archbishop Coleridge gave an answer to why there isn’t a 9th part in the plenary council considerations about marriage and family. Two reasons were given: One was that compared to the other 8 topics significantly fewer responses from the listening phase had been received about marriage and family. It was also thought that considerations upon marriage and family were more appropriate at a local and diocesan level than at a national level at this time.
 
Stay tuned for more tomorrow.

* C.C.C.G. are the Concerned Catholics of Canberra Goulburn the organisation behind Plenary Tracker.

The second and final assembly of the 5th Plenary Council of Australia is now at the half-way mark. Since the last blog-post I have watched the Mass for the Unity of Christians from last night, and the Plenary tracker episode from last night, as well as blogs today 6 July 2022, the livestreamed morning session, and the results of the second full day of voting.
 
There is so much to deal with, may God give me sufficient grace to do justice to all of it.
 
After yesterday’s comments about God’s ombudsmen being His prophets, a further notion came into view: It was when the leaders of Israel had good working relationships with the prophets that the best results happened. When prophets and leaders are in alignment with each other and with God effective battle strategies are given and implemented, warnings of enemy raids are received and acted upon – and God’s people flourish. We need to actively encourage those the Holy Spirit has bestowed charisms of prophecy upon, especially those called by God to speak truth in His name to power.
 
I had let some issues pass through to the keeper from the goings on prior to the Opening Mass. But with the content of this morning’s prayer service that is no longer possible.
 
Let’s start with some uncomfortable truths and a reminder that it is not against human enemies that we have to struggle, but against the sovereignties and the powers who originate the darkness in this world, the spiritual army in the heavens. (Eph 6:12)
 
In Jeremiah 44:16-19 there is a confrontation between the followers of the Lord God and the followers of a female goddess called the queen of heaven. Forsaking the Lord God was an act of rebellion. The followers of this goddess refused to listen to God through the prophet Jeremiah. Behind every god or goddess is a demon. The worship of this particular goddess continues in our day through parts of the new age movement and in the worship of the earth mother. It includes a refusal to call God ‘Father’. Depicted as a woman with many breasts, it had women as high priests and had healing rituals with the female principal, archetypes. That kind of worship usually includes witchcraft and harlotry. The demons behind female goddesses are among the strongest in existence. But the Lord wants to give His people victory. To disarm and to expose the evil powers, is part of the Christian calling to extend the kingdom of God. If you want the glory of God to return, and evangelisation to be effective, then the evil forces behind the various forms of earth mother worship must be dealt with.
 
The first nations people are a spiritual people and they are acutely aware of the ongoing battle between the good spirit and the evil spirits. Some first nations were more open to the Holy Spirt and some first nations were more open to evil spirits, particularly those associated with the earth mother entity. That’s why all first nations rituals and practices need to go through a discernment process, so that only those inspired by the Holy Spirit become enculturated.
 
The line between what is of the Holy Spirit and what is not of Him got crossed several times this morning at the prayer service, and it was also crossed several times before the Opening Mass began on Sunday. This needs to be officially repented of.
 
At minimum, could we be specific and always use Holy Spirit and not the shortened ‘Spirit’, please?! There’s good reason why the Church insists on the title Holy Spirit. That way there’s no doubt at all about which Spirit is being invoked.
 
Which gets me started on the ‘let’s permit the spirit of the land to enter into us and flow through us’, or ‘calling upon creation, breathe in the land and let it flow through us’. That terminology is not referring to the Holy Spirit! Anything not of the Holy Spirit is spiritually dangerous stuff. The context was in drawing upon sources, but shouldn’t the deep riches we call upon be the Bible and the lived tradition of the Church and its magisterium throughout Christian history?
 
Bishop Bosco Puthur’s homily on 4 July 2022 is instructive, especially this excerpt:
 
“The conditions given for receiving the promise of the Holy Spirit are that we love God and keep God’s commandments. Do we really love Him? Do we follow the Lord’s commandments, or are we making new commandments influenced by the spirit of the world? Are we incapacitated to receive the Holy Spirit promised by the Lord because we are so consumed by the spirit of the world?”
 
Such worldliness includes all the popular issues of our day which do not conform to the Gospel. Feminism, relativism, transgenderism, and all the ‘if it feels good do it’ philosophies are aspects of that worldliness.
 
Back to procedural matters. There was an intervention this morning from the steering committee about voting on matters liturgical. Since some motions today will have to with specifics pertaining to the Latin rite liturgy (a.k.a. Western rite, Roman rite, Novus Ordo), the Eastern Rite bishops will not vote on these motions. Therefore they will abstain from voting on those specific motions. Now this brought to light that all the Plenary Council members could abstain from voting on any motion. This was news because I thought we were all under the impression that voting was mandatory. Unfortunately, further clarification was not given upon whether the two-thirds majority required was on a baseline of all eligible voters or on a baseline of total of actual votes excluding abstentions.
 
Bishop Hurley’s homily last night explained how ecumenism is an imperative because every missing piece in the Body of Christ jigsaw matters. We are incomplete without the missing ones, and each jig-saw piece gives context and meaning to the surrounding jigsaw pieces.
 
The big debates today were on two topics; about women in the Church and about whether the term LGBTQIA+ should be used in a specific motion or instead language less targeted and wider ranging.
 
The latter is easier to deal with, it’s a choice between explicitly naming all sub-groupings of persons and risking missing some out; or using less targeted language which encompasses everyone in a general way. It’s one of those arguments you can see both sides of. Possibly if that multi-lettered term was less politically charged it wouldn’t have been an issue.
 
I’ve read through the motion about the role of women in the Church as it was voted upon, and I can see why it didn’t obtain a two-thirds majority in either vote. It tried to do too much. If that big motion had been packaged into four smaller motions, some of them would have been approved. It is a great pity that resolutions concerning adequate remuneration were not in a separate motion. Although many felt like the failure to get a two-thirds majority was a slap in the face, in reality most of that motion was half-baked and needs a lot more work before the implications of implementation of every part of that motion are understood well enough for general approval to be reached. The numbers who voted Yes, even though they were insufficient, should be seen as an encouragement to keep working at it until it is fully baked.
 
There was also an amendment which failed to pass, something along the lines of an acknowledgment of the hurts and frustrations of womenfolk in the Church. I can see why this one didn’t pass too. Firstly, not all women in the Church are exasperated to the same extent as those who drafted the amendment, if at all. Secondly, such acknowledgement is as fraught with implications as getting a government to say sorry to first nations people. Additionally some members may have felt that the hurts and frustrations were self-evident and/or lacking the future looking aspect required for inclusion in a Plenary Council motion. Sadly some members took this failed amendment quite personally, and the most obvious reasons for not getting it approved have nothing to do with misogyny.
 
I think the rest is going to be rebuttal of some of the discussion in the Plenary Tracker unless I remember something else.
 
I found myself getting increasingly angry with the general use of the terms inclusion and exclusion without references to specifics. There is a very big difference between inclusion/exclusion from the Mass, from the parish community, from receiving Holy Communion, from being a parish council member, from being a candidate for ordination, from enrolment of children in Catholic schools, and many other things. Each has very different terms of reference.
 
Comment was made about how inclusion was going so well in schools, hospitals and social services, so how come it isn’t going so well in the rest of the church? There’s a simple answer. When it comes to hospitals and social services, if you are in need, you get helped. When it comes to schools, if you agree not to rock the boat too much when we get a bit Catholic, come on in, we’ll take your money and enroll your child.
 
Absolutely everyone is welcome to attend a Mass, or any other kind of prayer. Obviously if your intent by attending is to conduct a protest, you won’t be welcome. Ditto if you significantly interfere with the ability of people to participate in the Eucharist by screeching, demanding money in a loud voice or otherwise making a scene.
 
Receiving Holy Communion however is a completely different ball-game. By receiving Holy Communion you are reaffirming that you believe all that the Church believes and teaches and that you are committed to living completely according to those beliefs and teachings. Why? Because being in communion requires both love AND truth. Ask a divorced person about what happened to their marriage, and ‘we were no longer being honest with each other’ will be part of that explanation. If you have ever accompanied someone going through the R.C.I.A. programme (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) or read testimonies about someone’s R.C.I.A. experience, you will see a common theme of the struggle to be able to say with sincerity ‘I believe all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches’. Only when that milestone is reached does immediate preparation for the sacraments of initiation begin.
 
When it comes to receiving Jesus in Holy Communion the Church takes things deadly seriously. Jesus is giving His whole self to us; our response has to be giving our whole self to Him – nothing less is appropriate. Even though the Church looks like a bit of a bully it is a protective stance, not an exclusive one. The Church takes 1 Cor 11:28-30 very seriously. “Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. In fact, that is why many of you are weak and some of you have died.”
 
Where the rub comes for many is that Church teaching expects chastity according to state of life for all its members. That’s right. Sexual activity only between a husband and wife, and not acting upon their sexual inclinations for everyone else. Yes again, being Catholic isn’t easy, it isn’t for wimps.
 
Admittedly asking probing questions of each other is not normative unless it becomes unavoidable, or some public scandal has occurred. Don’t ask, don’t tell, is standard operating procedure, with the caveat that even if none of the rest of us knows, God does know, and if a sacrilegious communion is made, there will be God-initiated consequences and they will be unpleasant in the here and now, and most definitely in the hereafter.
 
Remember, during those times in your life that you are unable to make a sacramental communion, you can make a spiritual communion either according to an approved form or in your own words expressing the desire for sacramental communion and asking for Jesus to visit your soul spiritually because at this time you are unable to receive Him sacramentally. Don’t set spiritual communion at low account, great Saints have made a comparison between sacramental communion and spiritual communion as between gold and silver.
 
The Jesuit present at last night’s Plenary Tracker made some pertinent points. Councils are important and necessary, but change is a lot longer process than that. Historically some changes have taken 200 years to be accepted by the Church on a world-wide basis. Change normally doesn’t originate in Councils but from mavericks like Blessed Frederick Ozanam who founded the St Vincent de Paul society, like the youngsters in Melbourne who began driving a van with soup and sandwiches to the homeless, like St Francis of Assisi who founded the Franciscans not because he wanted to but because so many people wanted to live the kind of life with Jesus that he pioneered.
 
Somehow, we have to give up the notion that all discrimination is negative discrimination. There are very good reasons why we only permit qualified electricians to fix electrical problems. There are very good reasons why you have to be over a certain height to go on some fairground rides.
 
We have significant precedents in salvation history that despite living on elbow rubbing terms with cultures that had priestesses, only the male descendants of Aaron could become priests in Israel and Jesus only had His chosen Apostles, all male, at the Last Supper when the Eucharist was instituted. Women can choose to rant and rave about this to God and to everyone else, or they can re-read the passage about the thorn bush in Judges 9:7-15 and perhaps conclude that leaders accept leadership because they’re not productive at anything else – dear sisters, please take stock of those things you have excellence in doing, and happily continue to do those things. Accept that as St Paul says we can’t all be eyes in the Body of Christ, we can’t all be arms, there are things that you dear sisters can do that are absolutely necessary and that no one else can do. Just because a kidney is hidden and unseen and not as out there and visible as a mouth, when it comes to keeping the body alive and healthy - the kidney is far more essential.
 
I fully sympathise with all grievances about priestly ineptitude, gaslighting and high-handed behaviour. But Chesterton speaks true when he says in What’s Wrong With the World, ‘We all admit that a lazy aristocracy is a bad thing. We should not by any means all admit that an active aristocracy would be a good thing. We all feel angry with an irreligious priesthood; but some of us would go mad with disgust at a really religious one.’ In other words, yes, it is bad, but it could be a lot worse; be careful what you wish for.
 
But we can’t hold onto our well-earned grievances. Not if we want to pray ‘forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us’ authentically. Forgiveness is a non-negotiable. By golly gosh it is hard to do, but if we look at the crucifix and at Him who died as much for me as for the person who has hurt me, and see that Jesus wants us both to be reconciled to Him and to each other – it becomes easier. Ask for the grace to forgive, if necessary ask others to join you in seeking that grace. We can’t possibly be witnesses to His kingdom of love and mercy unless we are loving and merciful in our own lives.
 
In late breaking news, somehow the Plenary Council is going to divide the motion on women in the church into small parts and vote on each separately. That seems a tall order given how pressed for time the timetable already is. Perhaps they might not be having as much time off on Friday as they thought – since I can’t see any other way of squeezing it in and giving each part due consideration.
 
What will tomorrow bring?