Join us for a conversation exploring the history and meaning of synodality and the promise and challenges of the synodal process. Four noted scholars will explore pastoral and personal realities and the future of women in ministry, as well as the challenges and opportunities that arise when race, culture, gender, and identity meet synodality.
Elyse Raby, Ph.D., Rachel Bundang, Ph.D., C. Vanessa White, D.Min., Elsie Miranda, Ph.D.
Feb. 29, 7-8:30 pm
St. Clare Room, University Library
In preparation for the next session of the Synod on Synodality the Vatican has invited all members of the global Catholic community to participate in synodal conversations on important themes, questions, and issues that relate to the situations and contexts of local communities and to propose practices that represent visible and concrete signs of synodality in the Church.
Each synodal moment will feature a delegate to the Synod and create space to engage in dialogue and conversation and to share best practices.
Final Event in the series:
April 24: How to become an all-missionary synodal church that welcomes the vocations and ministries of all its members, featuring Cardinal Robert Walter McElroy.
A California Catholic reader notes:
Elsie Miranda is involved with New Ways Ministry and feminist ethicists who opposed the Dodds decision.
White is also involved with New Ways Ministry and calls for public debate about abortion and reproductive justice.
Bundang is a contributor to “Lady Gaga in Theological Perspective” (America magazine).
Raby, “long educated in the Jesuit tradition,” is a SCU prof who teaches on, among other things, intersex.
Basically a synod about the synod about synodality. It would be laughable if it weren’t depraved.
Maybe Cal Catholic could convene a synod about the synod about the synod about synodality. How much damage can they do if they just keep talking?
There is nothing depraved about it. I think you just don’t understand it.
Bureaucrats have meetings when they want to give the illusion of work and accomplishment. I’m utterly weary of the Meeting about Meetings.
It is not a meeting about meetings at all. (Synodality is just a word for the life of the Church.)
Lately the life of the church seems to involve an inordinately large number of meetings.
“…all missionary synodal church…” To what end? I hear nothing of Christ, of salvation, of holiness (and much to the contrary, in fact) in their stated goals. And there is no way that I could possibly worship them as much as they worship themselves. “Synodality”, “personal realities”, reproductive justice”. They are like a murder of crows, shrilling loudly in barren treetops.
I am reminded of a rather mediocre poem I once read in a college poetry annual some 60 years ago (no, I did not write it: I was in jr high at the time). It was a rather sophomoric social critique, yet, for some reason, the last line has stuck with me through all the years. “But what of their souls, left hanging in the closet?”
The end is to proclaim Christ and His Salvation, to teach holiness.
You are not being asked to worship anyone but the Holy Trinity. In fact, it is a sin if you do.
It sounds like shrilling to you because you do not understand.
I understand perfectly. And I say it’s spinach.
Then explain
Universities are a wasteland of stupidity. Jesuit universities double the stupidity.
Intersex is a physical condition, a genital anomaly, some might say a birth defect.
Are you trying to say that there is something immoral about that?
Dr. Raby isn’t teaching about biology or physical conditions. As a reviewer of one of her works notes, “Some Christian theologians and intersex Christians maintain that intersex is part of God’s good and intended creation, in contrast to those who view intersex as a pathological result of fallen nature. The former claim that intersex bodies “are how God made them” and that “God does not make mistakes;” however, these statements risk implying a belief in special creation or divine intervention, two theological positions which have been challenged by evolutionary theory and contemporary natural sciences. This paper provides a more nuanced theology of creation and divine action as a foundation for a positive theology of intersex.” Dr. Raby has a doctorate from (Jesuit) BC, but SCU doesn’t indicate what field it’s in, though they call her a theologian. So, she is speaking of intersex in a theological and/or philosophical sense, it seems. As SCU notes, “Most recently, Dr. Raby has given a conference paper on the possibility of women deacons in the Catholic Church… (and) she has also published on intersex embodiment and theology of creation in Theology and Sexuality and on Marian symbols and kyriarchal ideology in Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza’s book Congress of Wo/Men: Religion, Gender, and Kyriarchal Power.” There is nothing immoral about any physical or psychological disorders.
I do not read much theology because I am more interested in catechetics and apologetics.
The job of the theologian is to think about God.
I find this interesting because I was born with birth defects and I never thought that God made me specifically with that birth defect.
It would be interesting to hear her thoughts.
Elyse means something else: she wants to reject gender complementarity and strict differentiation altogether. What she means by intersex is the end of male/female complementarity and binary categories as ways of classifying human beings. Notice she’s not married; probably never will be. Then she’ll be 50 and childless and husbandless and wonder why her academic career isn’t making her happy.
Someone linked to a youtube video below.
I think you are misunderstanding some things.
And why would you be happier with a husband and children than single?
You can dedicate yourself to God a lot more when you are single.
“You can dedicate yourself to God a lot more when you are single.” In theory, yes–but if one is not happy as a single person there will not be a full free dedication to God. A full free dedication to academics is always possible under such circumstances as the person seeks fulfillment in academia, but of course this does not guarantee real happiness. I speak from experience as a life-long single instructor in mathematics at the community college level, now 73 and retired. Ultimately, happiness is a gift of Divine Grace.
Daniel Gallup, I am not sure why happiness is a goal. I do not remember that ever being a goal in Catholics.
I think there was a saint who was told by the Virgin Mary “I do not promise to make you happy in this world, but in the next.”
Joy is a fruit of the Holy Spirit.
“Daniel Gallup, I am not sure why happiness is a goal.” Joy, I was only responding to the poster who brought the happiness issue to the attention of the reader. I have no argument with you and what you said. I believe it was to St. Bernadette of Lourdes that our Lady gave the words you cited.
And why would you seek fulfillment in academics. Most people don’t go to work to be fulfilled. It is just a part of a balanced life.
Each person has their own things that make them happy.
The stereotype of needing that first cup of coffee or of indulging in a pint of ice cream after a hard day.
Some people can walk outside in the sunshine and feel happy.
“I come in the little things, saith the Lord”
https://www.poetrynook.com/poem/immanence-0
I think trying to teach math would be a frustrating job.
I don’t remember any teachers that acted like they were having a good time teaching.
It is a service and it depends on who you are teaching.
I did not have that ability. I would get too self-conscious and anxious.
“I think trying to teach math would be a frustrating job.” It certainly is when you have students who for any one of a number of reasons don’t want to be in a math class. The less mature they are the harder it is on the teacher. I had some high-school years that drove me to the edge. Then I was “lucky”– I spent the bulk of my teaching life at Pasadena City College, a first rate community college with a fantastic math department. I could not have survived math teaching at the high-school level due to my own personal limitations, and our Lord in His mercy gave me a teaching position better suited to me.
She’s not a vowed religious sister; she’s a single laywoman who is devoting her life to academic work that contradicts Catholic teaching and Revelation about human nature as male and female.
I think you have misunderstood her academic work.
Oh yeah. It’s leap year.
I don’t see anything contrary to the Catholic Faith in any of these theologians.
You’re not looking hard enough.
I found the things that the reader was complaining about and I think they are taken out of context.
But go to the conference.
I bet they will not say anything contrary to the faith.
Why don’t these women just become Episcopalians?
Why should they?
Then they’d get the fake priesthood they all want.
Spend some time listening to Dr. Elyse Raby talk heresy:
https://youtu.be/fpNcJQi0oIE?si=CBQ3qx-k_VQaV_gD&t=1382
These sorts of feminist “theologians” are always suspect. They always promote women’s ordination, gay marriage, and all the usual heresies.
Those are not heresies. They are errors.
I did not hear any heresies in the talk on youtube either.
All heresies are errors but not all errors are heresy.
I wouldn’t trust any of those women to say anything worth listening to.
Why do we do this?
Why do we judge people we don’t even know?
Why do we feel the need to comment on a program at a school we do not even go to?
Why do we decide that people we don’t even know are not good enough, not Catholic enough?
Are we insecure?
Are we mean?
Do we feel threatened?
Do we think we glorify God by doing this?
They’re academics. They are supposed to be completely at home with arguments and evaluations. It’s a university, which is supposed to be a place for the free and objective exchange of ideas. Why do we do this? If we don’t do it, then they are not academics and it’s not a university.
Ad hominem attacks?
They haven’t even had the exchange yet. It is in a few days.
If there is a speaker coming to my parish, I would google them.
If I found something concerning, I might go or I might decide to avoid.
If someone asked me if I was going and I had decided not to, I would say why.
I might tell my pastor. If I went and heard something amiss, I would definitely tell my pastor or bishop.
I would be careful and accurate in what I said about it.
It is easy to exaggerate and to misrepresent.
Q Why do we do this?
A.Bias confirmation is validating and feels good. It’s also an opportunity for challenging what we know about what our faith teaches.
Q Why do we judge people we don’t even know?
A Because as humans, we need to make assessments constantly. Whether we’re looking out for error or threats, it is the human condition to use intellect to protect, maintain and survive.
QWhy do we feel the need to comment on a program at a school we do not even go to?
A Pricisely because it is a school. An influential one. It’s effects impact life on many levels in the immediate sense and into the future. They are happy to comment on issues dear to us…are we not allowed to offer comments?
Q Why do we decide that people we don’t even know are not good enough, not Catholic enough?
A Not sure we’re the one’s deciding. The doctrines of the Church are not a secret. There are definitely things that people of good will can disagree about, but not what these women represent.
Q Are we insecure?
A Maybe…probably…but what does that have to do with the question at hand?
QAre we mean?
A Who is ‘we’? And does disagreement = mean?
Q Do we feel threatened?
A Maybe…is that not OK with you? Would Athanasius, who battled the Arian heresy. have felt ‘threatened’? Is threat an illegitimate motivation for action?
Q Do we think we glorify God by doing this?
A Did Jesus establish a Church? Did he teach about truth? Did he establish an infrastructure for passing on that truth? Did he command us to teach the truth? Do people die for that truth? Does defending the truth, dying for the truth glorify God? Yes. Yes it does.
But it is a sin. All those excuses and justifications don’t justify the sin.
I want to give you the validation that we need to speak up for the Faith.
We just need to do it without sinning.
I do think there is a learning process to learn how to do that without harming someone’s reputation or bearing false witness or making rash judgements.
Which of the 10 commandments does opposition to gender/race ideology violate? PF has stated publicly that this ideology is most dangerous. Look it up. Invoking the term ‘sin’ isn’t some magic fire extinguisher to quash all reasonable conversation on a topic…so just stop….
Join us for a conversation exploring the history and meaning of synodality and the promise and challenges of the synodal process. Four noted scholars will explore pastoral and personal realities and the future of women in ministry, as well as the challenges and opportunities that arise when race, culture, gender, and identity meet synodality.
What in there do you find offensive and dangerous?
I would love to have a reasonable conversation but we don’t even know what they are going to say yet.
Ordination of women to the priesthood should not come up. If it did we should repeat what John Paul II said- “The Church does not have the authority to ordain women.” There is talk of a female diaconate. Pope Francis has said that “Holy Orders is for men” so it maybe could be a commissioning like they do for Eucharistic Ministers. In terms of the other topics, personal realities should be listened to. Listening to challenges and opportunities is not dangerous.
A friend shared some of this woman’s ideas with me. She considers gender complementarity to be oppressive towards women. She’s a kook.
I hope Bishop Oscar has time to attend
“Women” academics discuss synodality
Sheesh, I bet if they looked hard enuff, they could find some “Men” academicks that are every bit as nutty as these gals.
The room only holds 100 people. I don’t think they are expecting much interest.
(Like all thing Synod.)
And just where is the love, dedication, and true, sincere worship, and selfless service to God and Jesus Christ, in such horrific, Godless, pagan women heretics?? Forget all this warped, sick, victim-minded, vengeful, power-hungry “Me, Me, Me Generation” garbage! Dedicate your life in total selfless service to God, even if called to die for Him– because of a terminal illness or disability! Live and die only for Christ! I have always admired Jesuit Fr. Robert Spitzer, now age 71, Founder and President of the Magis Center, who is nearly blind, with no hope of ever re-gaining his eyesight. He explains complex scientific concepts, and integrates Catholic Teaching with it. He is a fine priest of God, and he “offers up” his sufferings to the Lord, in union with His Cross, and gives his whole life to serve Jesus Christ, in all that he does. “Ad majorem Dei gloriam!” “AMDG” (Jesuit motto)
I have never met a Godless theologian.
I’ve met many. They abound. I’d be willing to bet that nearly all the professors in the theology department at SCU are godless. Oh, they claim to believe in God and to have Catholic faith, but they don’t. They play language games with doctrine and faith and turn it into a religious justification for all things woke and Democrat.
that doesn’t mean they don’t exist
I’ve never met a Godless heretic, either.
You set people up by putting them on a pedestal.
and you gain supporters for others by treating them like dirt.
It is a lot easier and lazier to call people “heretic” than to actually do the work of listening, researching, thinking, developing a rebuttal and presenting it.
How about this thorough disemboweling of the women and their recent presentation?
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/03/02/feminist-theologians-express-frustration-hopes-for-octobers-synodal-assembly/
Anne Hendershott may have just skimmed presentation like the commenter below.. There is very little from the presentation. (And there was a lot that could be commented on.)
Maybe she was the reader that sent in the complaint to CCD.
That is most of what she wrote about.
She did not address anything they said, except a couple of things but she did not really go into that..
There was a lot to question. It seemed like they did not really understand the Synod.
My biggest question was “Did they read the documents or the statements of the Pope?”
I guess we will just let people be who they are.
I have just read Anne Hendershott’s article relative to these women and she devotes much of the article to giving background on each of them and less on what they said at the synod. The one thing she did pick up on was the sense of disappointment in the synodal process:
“The second presenter, Rachel Bundang, PhD, expressed her disappointment with the Synod: “I expected more from the process…I felt left behind…as a working theologian, educator and minister. I hoped it would feel more personal. But the process was exclusionary, opaque, and disappointing. I feel left behind…it has left me at a distance.”
I think one can read into her comments that she was hoping for a more progressive direction. Hendershott concludes:
” Believing that the Synod would move the Church to change her teachings on women’s role in ordained ministry, on reproductive rights, and “GLBTQ” issues, it is not surprising that these women would be disappointed with the outcome of the Synod so far. ”
So it seems Anne Hendershott’s article was more a picture of the frustrated feminism she observed and less on the particular contributions of each contributor.
I did not hear anything until the q and a about women deacons (not Holy Orders.) There was nothing on reproductive rights. There was, I think, one mention of LGBTQ issues but not in terms of changing Church teaching.
There was so much more that was interesting, if you are being synodal.
The outcome of the Synod is the Interim Phase that we are now in.
I think the women expressed disappointment in how the American bishops handled the task they were given. I think almost all the dioceses really did not understand it but it was so different and the word and documents were so hard to understand.
Even the presenter who gave a history, gave a history on Synods, not synodality.
Keep listening, keep praying, keep interested.
Thank you for watching it.
Oh wait, you did not watch it, you just read Anne Hendershott’s article. Thank you for doing that.
I also think that those who participated at the Vatican did not understand it.
The Pope is using a new word for an old concept.
Mass is synodal, prayers for the church, for evangeliztion are synodal.
Reading this website and other Catholic websites are synodal. (although they may be misleading)
Everything we do together as a church to further the mission of the Church (proclaiming the Good News of Christ) is synodal.
There is no successful person in the world who is in a good headspace who attacks another person-
David Goggins
And having turned, He said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For your thoughts are not of the things of God, but the things of men.”
He said it to him, not gossiping with the other apostles.
But I guess the Holy Spirit put it in the Bible, but it is something to ponder.
One minute Peter is Rock and on this Rock, Christ will build his Church.
And the next he is Satan.
It also tags in because here is Christ, doing what he was sent to earth to do and here is someone who loves Him trying to weaken Him.
Good quote.
That commits the fallacy of “No true Scotsman.”
I acknowledge that it is a generalization.
There could be times when a person without issues discusses another person but not to attack them but to make a point.
If the point is “these people are rats”, not so good
If what people want to know is “Are these people in my camp?” that is not such a good thing. Or assuming that they are not in your “camp” and looking for “proof”, that is not so good either.
Especially when the subject is the Synod on Synodality.
Thank you for the link, though. I appreciate it.
CWR- let’s say you are at a meeting and there are two very opposite people.
One says “I love the Catholic Church so much that I give everyone I meet a copy of the Catechism.”
Another says “I am so uncomfortable with the Catholic Church that I never tell people I’m Catholic.”
These two people do not need to “disembowel” each other. You can ask questions. “What makes you uncomfortable?” or “What reaction do you get when you give away the Catechism?” or “What is it that makes it love the Church so much?”
It is OK to be curious and empathetic.
Even if you disagree with people, you can treat them well.
When the person’s name comes up after the meeting, you never repeat what they said to make them look bad.
(Yes, I know, people do because we are all sinners, but we should not.)
I watched the whole thing. It did not talk about women’s ordination to the priesthood. There was a little mention of a women’s diaconate but it was in response in the Q & A and basically said “the door is not closed.”
It was all about the Synod and it struck me, again, that nobody really gets it.
Lot’s of complaining about how it wasn’t well done in the US. Most people did not even know about it (or understand it.)
There was one mention of gender at the very end but it was part of the discussion.
These women did not say anything deserving of all the vitriol they received here.
I skimmed it. A whopping 27 people attended, nobody under 50. Blah, blah, blah they droned on and on and on. They were in agreement about complaining that people don’t care about the synod. People don’t care about progressive Catholicism. Their complaints are really that their progressive vision for the Church is encountering disinterest and roadblocks.
Really poor quality video. You’d think that SCU could have equipped the room with a camera that would zoom in on the speakers instead of showing the whole room the entire time. Boring!
Thank you for being honest and admitting you just skimmed it. I have a lot of respect for that.
There were 150 people watching on live-stream in addition to the 27 in the room. (Apparently, rain is a issue in California.)
Each of them had 10 minutes (and stuck to it) so how did they “drone on and on?”
As for the statements on progressive Catholicism, I think there was a misconception among some that the Synod was going to help change the Church. Or on the conservative side, a panic that the Synod was going to change the Church.
It was not good quality video. They waited until they were ending to zoom in on the presenters and right before that happened there was some really weird glitch in the video stream. (Maybe nobody really knew how to work the camera.)
The important part – the audio-was clear and excellent.
This presentation received way more attention than it merited. Put me to sleep.
Stayed awake long enough to make a comment on it, I see…
In general, about the Synod, your diocese should be doing the Interim phase right now.
One of the speakers at this said that 7 Archdioceses and 51 dioceses in the US did not participate.
The interim phase is being nullified by nonparticipation because it’s pointless. The whole synod is pointless and a waste of time.
Every election year a women magazine ran a competition of which candidate’s wife made had the best cookie recipe. Readers would vote.
Women always looked at other women as rivals.
This generation of women, with some exceptions, have decided to support each other. Even if we make mistakes. Even if we are having a rough part of our journey.
Unfortunately, there are still too many women who like to “spill tea.”, but we are getting better.
“spill tea.”???!!?? I’m sorry, but I missed the whole point of your post because I do not understand what you mean by this. Could you explain this to me who is a bit slow on the uptake? Thanks in advance.
Gossip or talk about others
“These” women are united in hating men, maleness, masculinity, cisgenderism, heterosexuality, whiteness, patriarchy, and Christianity. Their philosophies and their “faith” are projections of feminist hatred for men.
What?
Theologians who hate Christianity?
I do not believe what you said is true however, it is interesting that something about these women causes so much anxiety in you.