Thanks to OTBT for pointing out this BBC news item: seems that a Catholic woman has been ordained in a secret ceremony. Her ordination of course goes against the doctrinal stance of the Catholic Church, and as such is most assuredly invalid. As such, she’s not technically allowed to perform any of the religious duties of a “real” priest. She’s also keeping her identity secret as she does not want to lose her job as a religious educator. So basically it’s a symbolic act of protest.

This is not the first such act of protest. Three years ago, a group of women later called the “Danube Seven” were ordained on a boat moored in the Danube River. (Here’s an article about some other women who have been “ordained” in the Catholic Church.) Then Cardinal Ratzinger promptly had them excommunicated. And now that he’s pope, I’m sure Benedict XVI will have no change in policy.

Here’s a weird quote on the subject from the President of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications in Rome, Archbishop John Paul Foley:

“As a man I cannot conceive… is that unfair? By divine decision… there is this difference.”

The archbishop continued that just as it is biologically impossible for a man to conceive, it is theologically impossible for a woman to be a priest.

This is a weird argument. First of all, they are comparing biology with culture - two extremely different things. Secondly, they are betraying their underlying mythological dilemma: jealousy of the creative power of women. They wouldn’t consistently use the powers of conception as an argument unless they were somehow obsessed with the difference. It seems like they are inherently recognizing the spiritual “superiority” of women in that they can be filled with the creative power of god to produce new life. Since men lack that function, they set themselves up as gatekeepers and dispensors of god’s graces in a socio-cultural setting. This would be weird were it not such an ancient and primitive idea. Joseph Campbell wrote about the origin of men’s secret societies being based on this same magical jealousy.

The author of this article also goes on, describing how he polled various Catholics after mass on the subject of female ordination:

[…] every person questioned, male and female, young and old, said they would welcome women into the Roman Catholic priesthood.

When I put this to Archbishop Foley, he said: “I don’t think you win a war by surrender. The question is, what did Jesus want? What did he reveal? And what does the Church authoritatively teach?

“That’s the norm by which we must judge, not by opinion polls.”

Well, as far as I’m concerned, Jesus didn’t want any of this nonsense in the first place. So that argument is out. This takes us to the more realistic argument: what does the Church authoritatively teach? They teach women can’t be priests. We all know that, duh! But why do they teach that? It’s not because Jesus taught that. He didn’t set up a hierarchical institution at all. So the whole argument falls apart. It’s also weird that the Archbishop calls this a “war”. It’s a rather creepy choice of words.

The thing that really strikes me about all this though is if you’re a woman and you don’t agree with the Church on this matter, how can you make a change by flouting the authority of the Church? Rather, when you are ordained, you’re submitting to Church authority in the first place, so it’s almost non-sensical to try to break out of that box. It almost seems as futile as if I were to protest the war in Iraq by enlisting and going overseas. Just become a freaking Episcopalian! Their God doesn’t give two shits if you don’t have a dick or if you’re gay, or any of that stuff. Why fight to be in a club that doesn’t want you? Seems perfectly obvious to me.