Care to Cast Your Vote? For What It’s Worth, I Did

When I was in my “Protestant phase” as I call it, I attended an experimental progressive branch of a very conservative denomination, allowed only because it was supposed to bring in those, especially young, people disaffected by the traditional church and probably because it was, after all, the Sixties when many such fresh breaths were permitted, even sanctioned (e.g Vatican II). The leader of that church, although a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary and extremely well versed in theology and ordained in ministry, insisted on calling himself our “coordinating minister” because he firmly believed we were all ministers, and he was there to facilitate and synchronize our ministries and his own. That definition of his role did not diminish him in the least and made the air fresh breathing for all of us.

I mention this as a prelude to responding to Regina Bannan’s challenge in her Table post of April 28 “In the News” to choose among some differing perspectives regarding Holy Orders.

She asked first if we agreed with William Shea of Holy Cross who argues for “desacralizing the clergy entirely. Ministers should be called and accepted by the community to perform a specific service such as presiding at the Eucharistic table. The ‘priestly people’ are the church, not the clergy.” But Regina cautions: “In seeking ordination for women, are we willing to go that far and abandon the sacrament of Holy Orders for that of Baptism, shared by all?” I would say a resounding “Yes” to that one but with a caveat. I am not a theologian; I have little expertise in the field and have studied theology only superficially, although, I have to say, with great interest. I like the idea of someone who has that expertise to help guide and, yes, coordinate, even inspire, our ministries. I am definitely inspired by us in the laity who speak from the heart or experience or blessed insight, but I also respect and need the benefits gained from those who have studied more deeply in fields other than my own (as well as my own – English literature, could you guess?). Desacralizing, yes. Eliminating or totally replacing, no.

The second perspective Regina presents, is after my own heart. David Cloutier of Catholic University affirms Vatican II’s “identification of the church’s entire life as a sacramental sign for the world.” As one who is profoundly grateful for my Catholic upbringing’s helping me to see the whole world as a sacramental gift (and to treat it that way), his call to re-situate ordination in the whole sacramental picture of renewal, creation and redemption, open to all, richly given to all, resonates. So I vote for him, too.

I admire Regina, as a former professor, in her ability to present all sides and encourage us to think critically. I admit my vote in the last paragraph reflected my poetic? romanticized? as well as sacramental view of life. Regina encouraged me to try reason, too, in her description of Joe Holland’s, ARCC news, distinction between sacramental Holy Orders and clericalism which is what he sees as the culprit in creating this unjust, unequal, stultifying “bureaucratized caste system”. The sacrament is not the problem, the clericalization of it is. Okay, I vote for him, too. I vote for them all.

The result of all that voting? Unfortunately, not the comfort of having all of those above elected to redress the problems they identify. Oh no, it is we who have that mission. It is we who have to keep protesting clerical arrogance, keep championing sacramental grace offered for all. As women’s activist and conservationist, Marjory Stoneman Douglas, proclaimed, it is we who have to “be a nuisance where it counts!” to, as Joe Holland says, “return the church to its roots and remind it that the entire laity is sacred and chosen.”