After his presiding over the canonization funeral mass of Ted Kennedy, read all about it here , I have expected little from Sean Cardinal O’Malley of Boston, but his latest stunt does seem to sum up the essential fecklessness of the man:
Cdl. Sean O’Malley is considered the closest American to the pope, if not his “BFF”. Considering how bursting with ecumenism O’Malley is, it’s no mystery why.
“Cardinal O’Malley, female Methodist pastor team up on ritual” (January 14, 2014, The Patriot Ledger)
“What moved me was not so much that I was anointing him,” she said. “It was him being willing to accept that from my hand – to ask me, as a woman in ministry, to do that.” … She paused with the priest at the cardinal’s pew, so they could receive the baptism water from Cardinal O’Malley. The next moment, the cardinal quietly asked the Rev. Robertson to administer the water for him. “My heart immediately went to my throat,” she said. “To be asked that by the man who might be pope someday – I was stunned. I was choking back tears for hours.”
Go here to FideCogitActio to read the rest. Pope Francis has highlighted what he believes are some problem areas within the Church. May I humbly suggest that one of the main problems within contemporary Catholicism is that too many people in positions of power within the Church give every indication that they do not really believe what the Church teaches and are merely playing at religion. A fake shepherd is worse than no shepherd at all.
Update: The clergyperson who “anointed” the Cardinal has written about the experience. The money quote:
I think we’ve already gotten off to a bad start with the word “anointing”. 🙂 Ecumenism is hard.
In fairness he had his baptismal vows renewed by a fellow baptised Christian. Is that necessarily a bad thing?
In the name of Ecumenism, Cardinal O’Malley has signed onto “Hope and Change”. He Hopes the Church will Change by embracing the feminine priesthood. Will revised Dogma soon follow in the name of developed Revelation?
The good Cardinal didn’t let a little thing like 2000 years of Church Tradition get in the way of his progressive pastoral initiative; Ted Kennedy would be pleased.
“In fairness he had his baptismal vows renewed by a fellow baptised Christian. Is that necessarily a bad thing?”
He is, God help us, a Prince of the Church, not a Methodist. His action was farcial unless he was attempting to make a point contrary to Church teaching.
I’m not sure exactly in which way he contradicted Church teaching here unless I’m missing something. There is only one baptism and Methodists validly administer it as well as any other laypeople do.
I have much more of an issue with Cardinals presiding at funerals of pro abortion “Catholics” than ecumenical gestures such as this.
I would expect nothing less from Cardinal Sean O’Malley.
Honestly, is this REALLY a surprise?
……where did I put that lava lamp, my old VW, those old cool pink courduroy bell bottoms, those love beads……..
Those were the days my friend, we thought they’d never end……..but they are coming back!
I wonder, didn’t I see Jorge at Woodstock? I seem to remember……..
“1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.”
Needless to say there was no necessity at all in this silly gesture.
I’ve read Canon Law too. This wasn’t a sacrament it was a layperson reminding a Cardinal to remember and be grateful for his baptism. It wasn’t a baptism and still can’t see how it contravenes Canon Law.
If a lady in re street says to me, “Remember you received Holy Communion and be grateful.” I’d probably nod politely – I wouldn’t think she’s attempting to give me communion.
So the Cardinal submitted to a ritual that he regarded as meaningless just to please the ministress? Please. I rather suspect that even if he is as much of a buffoon as Cardinal O’Malley gives every sign of being, he thought that it was rather more important than that, especially considering all the hoopla that this event received in the press:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/01/13/cardinal-malley-joins-service-sudbury-methodist-church/aWehNqZMfzGahpdCD0DReN/story.html
“…as a woman in ministry…”
I think this is the key quote. Its not that she is a Methodist minister reminding the Cardinal to follow his Baptismal promises. Its that a woman in ministry is offering it. I don’t know what meaning Methodists attach to sacramentals like this but she appears to consider it of substance and the particular import is linked to her gender.
A first rate blog to keep up with the antics of Cardinal O’Malley and the Boston Archdiocese is Boston Catholic Insider:
http://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/
The key thing is surely what do we as Catholics consider her to be? She isn’t ordained a priest (the Methodist community doesn’t and can’t do that) and so in the eyes of the Church she is a fellow baptised Christian
When Pope Benedict XVI entered Westminster Abbey in England he warmly met male and female Anglican ministers and rightly so: they represent a separated Christian community and their female ministries are as valid as their male ones.
PS: I’m not saying I support His Eminence’s actions but I think there are other things we could focus on.
“they represent a separated Christian community and their female ministries are as valid as their male ones.”
Pope Benedict did not submit to an “anointing” by any of them I am sure. Catholics do no good by submitting to such pernicious mummery. Pope Benedict’s Anglican ordinariate is a model of true ecumenicalism, and is the way the Church dealt with “separated brethren” until the day before yesterday in historical terms.
What’s your definition of “pernicious mummery”?
As Catholics, presuming we actually believe Apostolicae Curae the anointing wasn’t an anointing in any sacramental sense whatsoever.
I do agree that the Odinariate is an excellent example if true oecumenism.
How about we all agree that we can pray at least one Hail Mary for this lady, for her conversion to the Church and that she might find a ministry here – perhaps handing mantillae out to other ladies before High Mass?
“What’s your definition of “pernicious mummery”?”
Engaging in a fake religious ritual that you do not believe in.
“How about we all agree that we can pray at least one Hail Mary for this lady, for her conversion to the Church and that she might find a ministry here – perhaps handing mantillae out to other ladies before High Mass?”
Agreed! Judging from her blog she needs all the prayers she can get!
“The key thing is surely what do we as Catholics consider her to be? ”
No, I think the key is what does everyone consider this to mean. Clearly to the minister, it is a woman in ministry issue.
This incident makes it rather obvious the catholic church in america has been corrupted. Stick to the real church and hang on for dear life – eternal life.
To quote the Holy Father: “Who am I to judge?”
Christopher Ferrara and The Latin Mass have been making the case for over a decade that the fandango of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue has been malignant in ways few people appreciate.
“I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins” Catholics confess this each Sunday whether we say it in Latin or the vernacular. While the ancient baptismal creed spoke only of the ‘forgiveness of sins’: the fruit of Christ’s Death and Resurrection and the action of the Holy Spirit, the Fathers at Nicea wanted to ‘nail this one down’ since there had been a great deal of confusion, and worse, actual dissent and schism over the issue.
Even the great Saint Cyprian of Carthage did not ‘get it’. He and the bishops of North Africa refused to recognize the baptism administered by the heretics of the time, and insisted on rebaptizing them when they sought to come home to Holy Mother Church. Nonetheless, he was opposed by Pope Saint Stephen who claimed apostolic tradition as the grounds of his teaching: that anyone baptized by water and the Name of the Most Blessed Trinity was indeed baptized. Saint Cyprian, who wrote such a great treatise o Church Unity almost took the whole of North Africa into schism with him over this issue. It took a great deal of letter writing on both Stephen and Cyprian’s part to even begin to sort things out [BTW in those days the Church used persuasive arguments as the means of communicating teaching etc]
I don’t see Cardinal O’Malley as going against Catholic teaching at all but instead upholding it-that which has been handed down from Apostolic times and was enshrined in the Nicean Creed
Botolph: “Even the great Saint Cyprian of Carthage did not ‘get it’. He and the bishops of North Africa refused to recognize the baptism administered by the heretics of the time, and insisted on rebaptizing them when they sought to come home to Holy Mother Church.”
I again agree with everything you say. However. I see to St. Cyprian’s mistrust of the heretics. If the heretics do not know or understand the Faith, how can they do the Sacrament of Baptism the right way. Therefore, conditional Baptism must be done. Here, Cardinal O’Malley is present to witness to the correctness of the Sacrament, whereas, St. Cyprian was not present to witness. St Cyprian had to concern himself first with the soul of the baptized then with the souls of the heretics.
I was taught with the Baltimore Catechism. We were told back then that anyone can baptize, even an atheist (as wild as that sounds lol) if they have the intention of baptizing the person with water and the Name of the Blessed Trinity.
Of course ‘heretics’ do not agree with other teachings of the Church. That is their ‘nature’ however, if they have the intention of administering Christian baptism it is the Sacrament of Baptism period. The Church only administers conditional baptism if there is a real doubt about whether the person was ever baptized at all [for example Salvation Army, Quakers] or if the form of the rite was problematic: for example some Evangelicals baptize in the Name of Jesus or mainline Protestant churches who baptize in the Name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.
English Catholic you’re pretty sassy. That is offensive to me “perhaps handing mantillae out to other ladies before High Mass?” You may think it is funny to suggest that as a proper role for a woman is the church…but really- How rude and what a terrible misunderstanding of mass and the women who cover their heads.
” mantillae” … a person decides to wear a head covering for deeply personal reasons.
This woman did not anoint the cardinal. you don’t anoint with water. The rituals and practices of the Church are heavy laden with symbolism and the symbolism of what the Cardinal did there is murky and difficult to understand.
Anzlyne,
Perhaps the issue here is a cultural linguistic one. English Catholic is…English while almost all the rest of us are American. Assume it was not meant as a rub etc. I have no problem with mantillae -a lot better than the little pieces of tissue I remember women and girls put on their heads when making a visit etc, way back when I was a boy.
As for the ‘little ceremony” I don’t find it murky (of course we can disagree). It is simply a reminder of baptism applied in much the same way we have ashes applied. As for the woman doing this….my mother would ‘anoint’ my head with holy water every night when I was going to bed. I don’t find a problem with what my mother did or this ‘little ritual’
EnglishCatholic- God Bless all English Catholics.
But, that bottom image looks odd.
A woman dressed in Preist-like garb, blessing a Cardinal of the Catholic Church…
I place no fault on the female “minister”, as I actually believe she was thrilled at “blessing” a Cardinal.
The Cardinal hasnt violated any laws, but a mature-aged Cardinal of The Catholic Church partaking in washy washy kumbaya hoopla? Surely you can understand the cringe-factor of this scenario…
It doesn’t compare to Mary Magdalen washing the feet of Jesus with her tears.
The latter was a gesture done out of remorse and the pleading for forgiveness for her broken soul.
But this just can’t be taken seriously, as much as you try.
My problem (Boy, have I got problems!) with priestesses and such-like is that I don’t see them being filled with zeal for the glory of God or ardor for the salvation of souls.
I see them as being filled with the me.me.me.
O, yeah! Lo the noble heretic . . .
1st Timothy chapter 2
9 also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire 10 but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion.11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness and modesty
You know one of the most ironic things history/history of the Church reveals to us is that one of the major criticisms of the Reformers was that they thought the Catholic Church gave far too much ‘authority’ to women. As we do now, the Church had abbeys of women led by abbesses in full garb including a modified mitre and crozier (just as their counterparts, the Abbots did/do) Smaller religious houses had prioresses, who, although not at the authority level of an abbess, nonetheless carried a great deal of clout.
At night prayer the abbess blesses her flock with holy water, making the sign of the cross and it was/is understood that all venial sins were forgiven.
These women, as heads of their institutions would be in charge of great tracks of land and even had lay people working under them on the farms etc.
Yet not one of them was considered to be a priest or bishop. The Catholic Church has never had women priests or bishops, and never will.
The Protestant Reformers not only rejected the three vows but especially rejected this amount authority given to women. According to their view of Scripture women belonged in the home only. It is from them we get the phrase “barefoot and pregnant”. That is not Catholic in any way.
Now we have the Protestant churches with women ‘ministers’. I wonder what Luther, Calvin and Cranmer would make of all this lol
Botolph, can Catholic parents have their child validly baptized into the Catholic faith by having the baptism performed in an Anglican or Presbyterian Church or whichever church was closest to them.
I know I’m going out on a limb with this question, but it seems to be relevant on the question of Church Unity. Does Catholic baptism convery anything different from a Protestant baptism?
Slainte,
Ahhhhhhhh. You are not going out on a limb at all-at least not with me 😉 The answer is “no” but let me explain the reason.
By baptism (by water and the Name of the Most Blessed Trinity) a person is baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ which subsists in the Catholic Church. While the baptism would indeed be a ‘valid baptism’ in say a Methodist church (given the minister’s church in the above storyline) a child baptized in that church while truly baptized would already be separated from the full communion of the Catholic Church.
Let’s say we are living under a persecution of such an extent that there is no Catholic church for hundreds perhaps thousands of miles, yet there was a Protestant Church right down the street [they too probably would be persecuted now a days but let’s just give this] It would be better for you yourself to baptize your child, because the child would not be baptized into automatic separation from the Catholic Church. Same with schismatic churches, Orthodox etc. Make sense?
The baptism is real. We share one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. However their baptism initiates a person into separation from the Catholic Church
So whatever the Methodist Minister did with Cardinal O’Malley was essentially a symbolic event.
.
But as it appears he also baptized her, he thus brought her into the fullness of the Catholic Church.
While I was not there, it is safe to say that all they were doing was ‘renewing’ their own baptism, and then simply blessing each other with holy water. She did not make him a Methodist nor he make her a Catholic.
BTW I can understand the ‘shock’ of seeing this in a picture etc without any preparation (catechesis-which I assume went on there) or real sense of what it did mean. That’s why I am not shocked at any reactions in here. I think people who love the Church very much have been expressing their concern. The thing is is to get under ‘the picture’ to what was really going on-vis a vis in terms of Catholic teaching [traditional at that] Am I making sense?
I wasn’t shocked. I think the photo sends a confusing message. To those within Catholicism who believe that Tradition will allow a feminine priesthood, it gives hope when a Prince of the Church is baptized (or renewed) by a female protestant minister.
.
For others, it’s just inclear what is happening and requires interpretation…as you did when you had to dig under to discern what was occurring.
.
It is reminiscent of this….
.
“Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston, gave the Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart for an ‘ordination’ ceremony of new Methodist ministers in Texas. The event, which took place on May 28, 2013, was presided over by Methodist ‘bishop’ Janice Riggle Huie, who appears above ‘ordaining’ a ‘woman priest.’…” http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A525-Method.htm.
At the end of the day, I want unity but always envisioned unity as leading protestants back to Catholicism.
Slainte,
Yes, the picture does send a confusing message. Photos do that as do television etc. Ever wonder what a non-believer thinks when clicking through TV and come upon one of the many Masses televised? I don’t want this practice to stop for the sake of the elderly and shutins but in the early Church only fully baptized-confirmed Catholics were present during the Liturgy of the Eucharist-even Catechumens had to leave at the end of the Liturgy of the Word. Or ever wonder what people are thinking if they see one of our Eucharistic processions going through the streets? We all know what we are doing and Who is present in the monstrance but especially non-believers or non-Christians? Pictures cannot catch the levels of meaning which are indeed present [I am not comparing this little para-liturgy with the Cardinal and minister to the Mass or an Eucharistic Procession but I think you can get my drift.
To be honest I have a problem with a Catholic cathedral being used for an ‘ordination’ of any other church or ecclesial community’s bishop. So no argument from me on that. Although I can understand the good intentions behind it.
We are approaching the Prayer for Christianity Unity Octave [January 18-25th]. Each of us and all of us must be involved with this prayer, however, rest assured, the unity can only be in the One Church of Jesus Christ which subsists in the Catholic Church.
BTW we are also being asked by the American bishops to set aside this time and pray for the return to a respect for human life from the moment of conception until natural death, an end to abortion, all forms of euthanaisia etc.
Botolph writes, “…. Or ever wonder what people are thinking if they see one of our Eucharistic processions going through the streets?..”
.
The first time I walked in a procession (Corpus Christi two years ago) I felt very strange and self conscious as well; I think we Connecticut-ites are a little protestantized in our reactions…although there was a great beauty and reverence to the procession. We said the Rosary as we paraded with Jesus in the monstrance.
.
Just received notice from my diocese about the Right to Life March in Washington…and a novena in connection with children who have been lost to abortion. The season of life is upon us!
anzlyne,
I’m not sure why the wearing of a mantilla is offensive to you.
In the church I go to in Hong Kong (exclusively the old rite) – they have given girls roles such as giving a book to the Mass goers or a mantilla to ladies who don’t have one. Girls don’t serve Mass but they do the collection – they have found ways of including women and girls without going against tradition.
didn’t make myself clear. I have no problem with mantillas or any head covering, tisuue or not, that is used to honor God. Why be bothered by that? It is a personal choice of a way of relating to God the Father. Some people dress up for Sunday Mass, others don’t. Up to them.. How we dress has to do with our personal relationship to God and our understanding of ways a person can honor him. Some people kneel to receive communion on the tongue, others stand and take it in their own hand. Personal choice.
1 Mantillas are generally used by more traditional Catholic women.
2 The Methodist woman and her actions are not seen as traditional.. The actions could be seen as new, freeing, liberal, revolutionary, thought provoking – any number of things but not “traditional”
3 The sauce lies in saying that a proper job for this non traditional woman to do as a woman in the church is to hand out what has come to signify a traditional woman…..before “high” Mass.
The implications of the Cardinal’s action are not clear- His actions signify different things to different people, depending on their personal understanding of authority, rites, ordination.
Anne’s ruminations conflate various things and near the end she says::
“In a perfect world….a United Methodist clergywoman anointing a Roman Catholic Cardinal would be routine and unremarkable. In a perfect world Cardinal O’Malley and I would preside together at the Lord’s Table. In a perfect world I might preside with a Cardinal Brighid O’Malley.”
Whew
Our mothers blessing us with holy water as children, even as adults, is marvelous. We children routinely blessed our mother with a sign of the cross on her forehead and a kiss at bedtime. We bless our friends and pray for them similarly in hospital visits. Great.
However in a perfect world there Will be distinctions and certain roles to fill.
Blessings depend a bit upon the authority of the giver of the blessing. Who is doing the blessing, with what authority? A priestly blessing is a sacramental. A priest can bless water and “make” holy water. I can’t do that. Methodists can’t either. In her dreams in a perfect world she could “preside” at the Lord’s table. No, that authority came from Jesus and is given in our present generation through apostolic succession.
The pictures of this behavior by the Cardinal makes it more difficult for people to understand what the distinctions are and why. His behavior does seem like “playing at religion” without taking it seriously. Instead, clarity would help with advances in ecumenism
The talk of priestesses is a little fanciful.
Only the Catholic and Orthodoc Churches have a sacrificial priesthood.
Anglican and other Protestant bodies have ministers sometimes wrongly called “priests” and “bishops” but they’re not. As. Catholics we recognise them as ministers of their faith and don’t deny their goodwill but I think we should be careful with our language.
No Christian Church with valid ordinations has ordained women and if they attempted to it would be illicit.
*invalid, not just illicit
If women prayed and prophecied in the early church, can we not assume they served a pastoral-like role?
anzlyne,
I’m still confused as to why you think it would be wrong to pray for the conversion of this lady and for her to become a traditional Catholic.
I agree that clarity is important but we must recall that baptism is one of just two sacraments we have in common with Methodists.
“If women prayed and prophecied in the early church, can we not assume they served a pastoral-like role?”
No we can’t because there is zilch evidence of it in the historical record. Christians were noted for not having priestesses.
PS: I do also think that as Christians we should presume the goodwill of those writing including the lady Methodist minister, the writer of the article and one another. Yes, let’s debate the issues but not presume to judge and condemn someone.
Botolph,
Thank you for your clear, patient explanations.
Before that development, Donald, women prayed and prophecied and St. Paul speaks of his fellow-laborors, many of whom were women. Priscilla is listed before Aquila and Junia, it is argued, had quite a role to play in things. I think many Catholics and Protestants alike have been guilty of prooftexting to arrive at quick criteria for the ministry.
“we should presume the goodwill”
Why, when it is clear that she is motivated by feminism rather than Christianity? Presuming good will is as much a mistake as presuming ill will. Such things should be based on evidence and facts rather than presumptions.
Saint Paul also writes Jon that he allows no woman to have authority over a man and that women were to be silent in Church. The historical record really could not be plainer on this issue.
Donald,
Apologies, we obviously come from different standpoints here. Let me explain mine: I am a traditional, Roman Catholic who believes all that the Church teaches to be revealed by God.
Scripture, which the Church compiled states that Christ Himself said we should love one another. I know that some cafeteria catholics don’t seem to think that being charitable applies to them but as a Catholic, were I to publically attack someone’s goodwill (as opposed to their error) I would be sinning and would need to go to Confession.