A Queer State of Affairs
If Women
can be Priests
|
 |
|
... then Men
can be Nuns
|
Priests are supposed to be other Christs
in the world.
Nuns are supposed to be "other Marys" in the world --- we call them
the Brides of Christ.
There are few, I suggest, who would contend this point.
It does, however, present something
of a problem in the egalitarian world of correctitude which prevails
in many women Religious Orders in America --- and has become a point
of rupture in the increasingly radicalized Episcopal Church. It
is, we are encouraged to believe, a matter of "justice", of "equality".
It is "the American Way". And it has been exported, with typical American
industry, to other countries and other continents, although, in all
fairness, the ability to fly in the face of reason is not a particularly
American institution. Absurdity as the product of "progressive" social
agenda finds common ground wherever there are, well, uncommon interests.
Let us look at this issue of "justice"
from a more sober point of view; in fact, from the disinterested point
of view of logic. While this is not the paradigm of the academic
modus ponens, it nevertheless provides us with some logical relief.
If gender, as it is argued, is not a determining factor in the ordination
of women as priests, then by that same argument, gender should not preclude
the Consecration of men as Cloistered Nuns. Agreed?
Above is a photo of an Episcopal woman "priest". If this does not strike
you as odd, even incongruous, then neither should the accompanying picture
of a male Nun. I agree that it is a rather "campy" notion, but the logic
of the argument, and its conclusion, is inescapable.
I suggest that serious, even insurmountable, obstacles would exist were
a man to make application to a Cloistered community of Nuns. At least
on the planet Earth.
The Blushing Bride?
The point is that it has very much to do with a matter of gender. What
is more, I think it extremely unlikely that a man would be entirely
comfortable understanding himself as a (blushing?) "Bride of Christ".
Depending on the man, of course:
"Greet one another with a holy kiss"? (but not too deeply)
I would ask the many "progressive" women Religious Orders that proliferate
--- especially here in America --- if they are prepared, on the premise
of gender neutrality, to accept male novices and postulants into their
Orders --- and if they have a ceremony of "clothing" at all (which is
extremely unlikely) by which a Nun receives her distinctive religious
habit, if they are prepared to attire him with a veil.
If they are not --- that is to say, if the "progressive"
Religious Orders that stridently demand that women be ordained priests,
arguing that the failure to do so is evidential of "sexism" and a breach
of equal opportunity, of justice, that impugns the dignity of
women --- then they would be all the more guilty of the very "discrimination"
that they find so abhorrent in the Catholic Church's reserving the ordination
of priests --- to say nothing of bishops --- to men alone.
Unless your "sexual persuasion" is of the most militant sort, it would
be as ludicrous --- and absurd --- to see a man dressed as a Nun in
a habit as it is to see a woman dressed in the clerical suit of a priest
or the flowing robes of a bishop.
"Simon says this"
Click to enlarge
Perhaps we should petition the Leadership Conference of Women Religious
--- among the most vociferous in promoting the ordination of women---
in the United States and elsewhere to be at least consistent in their
stridency and agitate to allow men to become Sisters and Nuns as much
as they do to allow women to become priests and bishops. Why not? If
the premises are not faulty, then neither is the conclusion.
The Fields are Pink to Harvest
...
Does the LCWR fear that there are too many effeminate men and
that the numbers would strain their already diminished convents and
monasteries (if any remain, given that many "Sisters" live quite comfortably
in their own apartments apart from the virtual --- as opposed to real
--- "Community" to which they profess themselves to belong)? Or do they
fear that the effeminate men would outnumber the women, making them
a minority in women's Religious Orders? But that is discriminatory based
on sex. In other words, the dreaded word "sexism" would be predicated
of those --- who most deplore "sexism" in the Church.
Despite their clearly articulated and much vaunted "enlightenment" and
correctitude that leaves no room for distinction between sexes --- does
it come down to the banality of fearing to share "the same facilities"
as the new candidates? Open lids are, to be sure, a nuisance ...
What a skewed understanding of "justice", of "equality", of sexism!
Well, LCWR? We are awaiting your ... in a manner of speaking,
"redressing"... this injustice by opening your communities to future
male postulants. The fields are pink to harvest ... what are you waiting
for? Or does your willingness in the matter ... your "justice" ... extend
only so far ...?
Of course, you can always disagree,
and if you wish to call a three-sided figure, the sum of whose angles
equal 180 degrees, a circle, you are perfectly within your right. In
fact, you can even agitate to legislate that it is so. What you cannot
do is roll it down the street.
Printable PDF Version
|
