In her column "The Right Reasons" (Nov. 11), Emily Baxter attempts to castigate the recent decision by the Catholic Church to admit conservative Anglican priests into the fold. Unfortunately, in her eagerness to indict the Church, Baxter makes a number of theological and logical missteps. Above all, she makes the fatal mistake of assuming that difference inherently means inequality.
For those unfamiliar with debates within Christianity, the doctrine of the priesthood what is a priest; who should be a priest; what exactly are the powers of, and the requirements for, the priesthood has been a matter of debate since at least the Reformation. Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, there has been a heated discussion over the relative roles and importance of the laity (the non-ordained) and the priests. The conclusion of the Catholic Church has been that the laity and the priests are equal in dignity and importance, and that they fulfill equally necessary, though different, roles.
How is this related to Baxter's point? Well, simply put, Baxter seems to assume that priests are somehow more important than the laity. At one point in her column, Baxter remarks that "no one should be excluded from religious expression." Last time I checked, however, there aren't guards at the doors of Catholic or Anglican churches forbidding woman and homosexuals from entering. Anybody can express himself (or herself) religiously at mass, and can live the Christian life outside the confines of church as well. What, then, does Baxter mean? She seems to be equating the fact that women cannot be ordained with the idea that women cannot participate in the religious life of the Church. But this is simply absurd. If you have to be ordained to express yourself religiously, then the vast majority of Catholics in the world are apparently excluded from their own religion. I am not a priest, and in fact, since I have not completed four years of college, most religious orders would not ordain me. Yet, I do not believe this means that I am barred from expressing myself religiously.
Central to this whole controversy is the idea of the priesthood of all believers, or the common priesthood. The Catholic Church firmly believes and asserts that all the baptized are part of the common priesthood. Every baptized Catholic is, in some sense, already a priest. The fact that the roles and powers of the ministerial priesthood, which requires ordination, differ from those of the common priesthood, in no way diminishes the importance of the laity. In fact, if Baxter were to more closely examine the situation of Catholic churches throughout the country, she would find that the laity often have very prominent roles. Most parishes across the nation are run with the help of lay pastoral councils, whose members share in the administration of their local Church community. In fact, women are often the majority on pastoral councils, as well as the majority of paid Church employees and lay volunteers. Lay people have a good deal of say in how a parish runs on a day-to-day basis.
Baxter seems to assume that the only valuable ministry in the Church is the priesthood. But, in fact, the exact opposite is the case. As St. Paul writes in the Bible, "There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men." We are not all called to the same service or the same work. Some people are called to be priests, some to be doctors, some to be lawyers, some to be missionaries, some to be good parents and spouses, some to be single. There is no one single way of living out the Christian life there are in fact a vast multitude. And as a lifelong Catholic, I bitterly resent the implication in Baxter's article that I am somehow less free to express myself, and less essential to the mission and workings of the Church, because I am not a priest. If Baxter wants to diminish the importance of the millions of hardworking lay Catholics out there, she is free to. Just please do not do so in their name.
