Another Voice

I was thinking this past week about the US astronomer and author, Carl Sagan (1934–1996). I remember his observations a year before he died: “When people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority, (with)…critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what is  true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.”

Are many people today now moving into a post-truth state of mind? Certainly, the Internet is a goldmine of information as well as a minefield of misinformation and distortion. Facebook and other social media are hardly the sources of always reliable truthful statements.

What are the criteria for making reliable judgments about truthfulness? I look for reliable reporters, trustworthy news sources, and well-documented reports. I do not trust undocumented reports. Primary sources are crucial. We need to discern and help people discern the difference between fabricated stories and reality. We need to avoid fake history and fake news, but it is not always easy.

My own truth-seeking journey has taken several turns. As a small child I was a curious research examiner. One of my first explorations, when I was about four years old, was taking a small screwdriver and prying the back off my dad’s pocket watch to see how it worked. As an adolescent I tore apart old telephones, radios, old clocks, etc. My dad thought that was fine if I did not touch his watch. I was good at taking things apart. Reassembly was more difficult. But I could see how things worked. Or used to work.

In high school and college, I spent eight years – 180 miles from my home in SW Michigan — at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit. The country boy became quickly urbanized, and his intellectual and socio-cultural world expanded tremendously. In high school I reached the point at which I could write a term paper in Latin. I then moved on to learn Greek and Spanish. I also learned how to play the seminary pipe organ, with hands AND feet. It felt great. If he could have seen me, Bach would have laughed.

Seminary for me was a new world of experiences. I got used to showering every day with a bunch of naked guys but never found it a turn on. I did wonder however about some of my fellow students who had strong “particular friendships.” Some of those guys were also among those seminarians who mysteriously disappeared, usually while the rest of us were at morning prayer and mass. After breakfast, when we went to the dormitory to make our beds, we would see their lockers open and empty. Even their beds had disappeared.

Philosophy intrigued me, especially existentialism. The search for the authentic. I had to study Thomas Aquinas (c.1225-1274) of course but read as much as I could about Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) and Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980). At the same time, I was very religious. My classmates called me “Pious Dick.” I resonated with William James (1842–1910) and his The Varieties of Religious Experience. In many ways I was – for a while — a Catholic fundamentalist. I had questions but my spiritual director stressed that I should never question and never doubt. Those questions would later bombard me. 

In the 1960s, when I was in college, the “generation gap” was also very real for me. I was strongly opposed to the then developing U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Many of my older relatives, however, supported the war.

Several former friends and classmates died in Vietnam. I saw them as victims not heroes. Their parents thought I had betrayed them because I never went to Vietnam. But, for the record, I was not a “draft dodger.” I had completed my Selective Service registration when I became 18 years old. I carried my “draft card” with me but had a bonafide legal deferment because, as a seminarian, I was a divinity student.

Deep wounds last a long time. U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War began in the 1950s but escalated in 1965 until U.S. withdrawal in 1973. The American military presence in Vietnam had peaked in April 1969, with 543,000 military personnel stationed in the country. By the end of the U.S. involvement, more than 3.1 million Americans had been stationed in Vietnam and 58,279 had been killed. The Vietnam War tore America apart much more than the nineteenth century Civil War.

When I graduated from college in 1965, my bishop, Alexander Zaleski (1906-1975), who had gone to the American College seminary in Belgium at the Catholic University of Louvain, sent me to Louvain, better known today as Leuven. For me it was a tremendous eye-opening and mind-expanding experience. My father would often comment, with a chuckle, in later years: “Jack was never the same after Louvain.”  

In Leuven I began to question everything. It began early in my first year when my dogma professor, Fr. Gustave Thils (1909-2000), asked our class: “If tomorrow archeologists in Jerusalem would find the bones of the historical Jesus, would that destroy your belief in the Resurrection?” I thought of course it would. But I asked Professor Thils how he would answer that question. He said: “Of course not! Resurrection is not resuscitation.” 

I thought Thils was wrong, and so my questions began. It was in December of my second year in Leuven that the British theologian and Catholic priest, Charles Davis (1923–1999), whom I read and respected, announced he was leaving the Catholic Church. I was terribly upset. Davis explained that the Catholic Church had become too powerful and too dehumanizing and called it “a vast, impersonal, unfree, and inhuman system.” I went back to Professor Thils, with whom, I had discovered, I could really discuss my questions. I told him how upset and how sad I was because I had always considered Father Charles Davis to be an excellent theologian. Thils smiled and said: “Yes and Charles Davis still is an excellent theologian.”

Gradually I also came to a better understanding of “faith” as it appears in the Bible. It means first and foremost a relationship of trust and confidence in God. That understanding of faith still sustains me.

After three years in major seminary, and just one year away from priesthood ordination, I decided I wanted to become a non-ordained theologian and did not want to spend my life as a celibate priest. I informed my bishop. Bishop Zaleski was not happy and asked a couple of his priest friends to send me advice-letters to help me “think more clearly” about my vocation.

The priests back in Michigan stressed that many married men were quite unhappy and that, even as a celibate priest, there would always be ways for me to “have sex” with a woman or even a boy when I “needed it.” I was disappointed and angry. I was amazed that they could advocate immoral sexual behavior and be so blind to marital love and intimacy. I wrote back to the chief letter writer that love and marriage were much more than just having sex “when one needed it.” He never replied.

With the friendly help and support of professors Gustave Thils, in Leuven, and Edward Schillebeeckx (1914–2009) at the, then, Catholic University of Nijmegen, I began my journey toward becoming an historical theologian. I have never had any regrets.

In Leuven my classes were mostly in French, but classes in Nijmegen were in Dutch. Preparing for a year in Nijmegen, I spent a summer learning Dutch. My favorite teacher became my wife in 1970, and she is still my favorite teacher.

Well, enough personal history. Next week some thoughts about the historical Jesus — my theme for the remaining weeks of Lent 2026.

• Jack

 

 

On November 28, 2025, the Vatican released the following statement from Pope Leo XIV: “We must strongly reject the use of religion for justifying war, violence, or any form of fundamentalism or fanaticism. Instead, the paths to follow are those of fraternal encounter, dialogue and cooperation.” But since early 2026, however, Pope Leo has been dealing with a very specific Catholic fundamentalist problem.

 In the first week of February 2026, the Swiss-based Catholic fundamentalist group, The Society of St. Pius X, announced plans to consecrate new bishops without papal consent.

Founded in 1970 by the French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905–1991), The Society of St. Pius X prioritizes a pre-Vatican II, anti-Modernist stance, strictly adhering to the Tridentine Latin Mass and traditional Catholic doctrines. In 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without papal consent, arguing that it was necessary for the survival of the church’s tradition. The Vatican promptly excommunicated Lefebvre and the four other bishops. In the years since the 1988 excommunication, as Nicole Winfeld reported via Religion News Service, on February 19, 2026, the Society of St. Pius X has continued to grow, with schools, parishes, and seminaries around the world. Today it has 733 priests, 264 seminarians, 145 religious brothers, 88 oblates, and 250 religious sisters.

In the United States, at least since the second decade of the twentieth century, the word “fundamentalism” has usually been understood as something quite specifically Protestant, militant, and American. Few people realize, however, that a militant and sectarian “fundamentalist” movement emerged within American Roman Catholicism in the decades after World War II. The focal point was the St. Benedict Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, founded in 1940 to serve the growing number of Catholic students attending Harvard University and Radcliffe College.

Significant changes at St. Benedict Center came in 1943, however, when Leonard Feeney, S.J. (1897–1978) arrived as pastor. Feeney had been a literary editor at the Jesuit magazine America in the 1930s but, at St. Benedict Center, he gave incendiary speeches, leading Robert F. Kennedy (1925–1968), then a Harvard undergraduate, to write Archbishop Richard Cushing (1895-1970) of Boston requesting his removal.

Feeney had declared that in strongly Catholic Boston, he wanted to “rid our city of every coward liberal Catholic, Jew dog, Protestant brute, and 33rd degree Mason who is trying to suck the soul from good Catholics and sell the true faith for greenbacks.”

Feeney was excommunicated on February 13, 1953. Nevertheless, he and his followers crafted the paradigm for American Catholic fundamentalism as an anti-modern, reactive, and sectarian impulse that has been with us ever since.

A helpful book about American Catholic fundamentalism is Fr. Mark Massa’s Catholic Fundamentalism in America (Oxford University Press, 2025). Massa, a Jesuit Priest, is professor of theology at Boston College and for nine years was director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life. For the 2026–2027 academic year, he will be a visiting professor at Fordham University.

Massa recounts how American Catholic fundamentalists have reacted both to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and to the tensions of America’s pluralist, secular culture. Like their Protestant cousins, Catholic fundamentalists combine a sectarian understanding of religion with an aggressive anti-progressive stance. Their main enemies are not Protestants or secular Americans, but other Catholics who do not share their extreme views.

Like Protestant fundamentalists, Catholic fundamentalists have sought and found political conservatives with whom to make common cause on a range of issues, like the place of women in American culture, opposition to LGBTQ people, rejecting the value of pluralism within the Church and the larger culture, and rejecting the importance of cooperation with non-Catholics.

Contemporary Catholic fundamentalists merge their theological and political impulses into movements that go far beyond mere conservatism. Their fundamentalism is a rigid, ideological, and often militant approach that demands a return to an imagined pure, literal interpretation of foundational texts or beliefs.

They only listen to sources that they agree with. Their brains have stoped questioning. They no longer think for themselves. They obey their fundamentalist leaders, and have zero empathy for anyone outside their group,

Conservatism often treasures tradition, heritage, and “the way things were done” as a guiding, but sometimes flexible, framework. Fundamentalism goes farther by insisting on strict literalism and inerrancy of sacred texts and rejecting modern scholarly or contextual interpretations. Fundamentalism is dangerous because it fuels extremism, misogyny, and violence, threatening democratic values and social cohesion.

Fundamentalists view modern liberal culture as a corruption that must be erased and replaced with their specific, often archaic, ideology. While conservatives can work within democratic pluralistic frameworks and accept compromise, fundamentalists view compromise as a character flaw or a sin. Fundamentalists select and reinterpret certain specific past traditions to provide a sense of security against social change. But they really seek total control over society, including politics, culture, economics, and family life. They often adopt a combative, “war-like” stance toward opposing viewpoints, “them against us,” viewing “them” as treasonous.

By way of example, fundamentalists in the current U.S. presidential administration have embraced the “Great Replacement” theory, a far-right conspiracy theory that was first proposed by the French writer Renaud Camus (born 1946) in the late 1990s, and it has become increasingly mainstream within today’s Republican Party. The “Great Replacement” theory says that Brown and Black migration is destroying “western civilization.” It argues that such migration must be stopped and that Brown and Black people must be purged so that White Christians can dominate society and reinforce traditional religious and patriarchal hierarchies. These “Christians” ignore of course the historic fact that Jesus of Nazareth was certainly NOT a White-skinned European, but a Brown-skinned Middle Eastern Hebrew.

Contemporary fundamentalist-leaning Catholics are active in the incumbent presidential administration. Six of the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices are Catholic, with a conservative majority. Individuals and groups associated with fundamentalist Catholicism are also among the key architects and supporters of Project 2025. The the architect of Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s president, has close ties with the far-right fundamentalist Catholic institution Opus Dei, which grew strongly and flourished during the thirty-six years of the Francisco Franco (1892-1975) dictatorship in Spain.

I clearly remember what the award-winning journalist and columnist Heidi Schlumpf wrote in America magazine on November 7, 2025: “That the United States now seems to be exploding with Catholic fundamentalist movements is more than a little concerning, not just for the Church but for the country, if Catholics join forces with groups and individuals advocating for Christian nationalism. It is clear that Catholic fundamentalism, with its inherent militancy, is a serious threat, especially at a time of rising ideological violence. The solutions to these broader societal issues are not simple, but understanding the religious roots and connections is critical.”

Critical times. But I am not pessimistic. We need to deal constructively with Catholic fundamentalism by fostering dialogue over hostile debate, by focusing on charity, and by providing a more nuanced understanding of Catholic tradition.

We need to promote good education and encourage critical thinking, helping people understand that fear of questions and change can lead to rigidity, while true faith often involves grappling with complex questions.

• Jack

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What strikes me as I re-read Matthew 5:1-10, is Jesus the Great Teacher. Today I offer my own commentary. Jesus goes up a hill with his disciples and begins to teach what we have come to know as the “Sermon on the Mount” and the “Eight Beatitudes.”

The Teacher then said…

 

1.How blessed and fortunate are those people, who are humble in spirit.

The humble in spirit realize that greatness is achieved through service not domination. Power and control over people have no place in the community of faith. We do not sacrifice people nor the truth to preserve the “good name of the church.” The humble in spirit realize they are not masters of the universe. They understand they cannot survive on their own. They need to collaborate with sisters and brothers. They need to listen to the Spirit and be attentive to the signs of the times.

2.How blessed and fortunate are the gentle.

The gentle people are the meek: those people who can make room for someone else, even for the “losers.” They are neither so arrogant nor so self-centered that they see only what they want to see. Arrogant and crude belittling of other people has no place in the behavior of those who claim to be followers of Christ – even when they sit in high political office or wear colorful clerical uniforms. “You know that among the pagans the rulers lord it over them; and their great men make their authority felt. This is not to happen among you.” (Matthew 20:25-26)

3.How blessed and fortunate are those who mourn, because they have compassion.

The compassionate can feel the pain of another. They put an arm around the fearful and the oppressed. They lift oppressive burdens from the shoulders of the old, the rejected, and the impoverished.

4.How blessed and fortunate are those whose greatest desire is to do what God requires.

We are fortunate if we have noble ideals, strong values, lofty goals, and the motivation to build up what is best in others and in ourselves. But the temptations are strong: to conform, to do what everyone else does, to simply read the news, and then not rock the boat.

5.How blessed and fortunate are those who show mercy to others.

Merciful love is assistance without conditions. Genuine Christians are not fear mongers who scapegoat gays, or feminists, as many conservative Catholics are doing and some militant “Christians” are doing. Then the Biblical concern for widows, orphans, immigrants, and the poor gets lost.

6.How blessed and fortunate are the pure of heart.

The pure of heart are honest-hearted. They are not two-faced, with hidden agendas or secret desires to advance themselves by using and abusing other people. They do not brag and joke about the different or unfortunate. The pure of heart honor and search for truth. They do not lie and fabricate phoney “facts.”

7.How blessed and fortunate are those who work for peace.

Those who work for peace do not erect walls. They are bridge builders. They cooperate rather than compete. They struggle to resolve political, social, and religious polarization through tolerance, dialogue, and mutual respect. To paraphrase, in contemporary style, Matthew 25:52, “put your guns away, for all who draw their guns will perish by guns.”

8.How blessed and fortunate are those who suffer persecution because they truly live the Gospel.

There are a lot of phony Christians in high places these days. They love to denigrate their critics. They profess love of Christ; but in reality they only love themselves. Matthew’s Jesus is adamant about this. He spoke of religious leaders who wore impressive religious garments and talked God’s values but never lived God’s values. “Do not do what they do,” Jesus said “for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Everything they do is done for people to see. (Matthew 23:3-5)

Jack

_____________________

Dr. John A. Dick 

 

 

PS. I will be away from my computer for a few days for what, in Belgium, is called “Krokusvakantie” (Crocus Vacation) a one-week holiday typically held in February around Ash Wednesday. It acts as a break during the dark winter months and signals the approach of spring. I will return in the first week of March.

 

 

 

 

“The Hill We Climb” is a poem written by the young, black, and contemporaryAmerican woman Amanda Gorman. It was first recited by her at the presidential inauguration on January 20, 2021. Thinking about socio-political developments in today’s America, I find her poem a call for wisdom and hopeful action. It may or may not be a great poem, but I like it because it addresses national division and trauma but emphasizes healing, unity, and the opportunity to build a better future, declaring: “For there is always light, if only we’re brave enough to see it. If only we’re brave enough to be it.” Exactly what we need today.

 

 

The Hill We Climb

 

When day comes, we ask ourselves, where can we find light in this never-ending shade?

The loss we carry. A sea we must wade.

We braved the belly of the beast.

We’ve learned that quiet isn’t always peace, and the norms and notions of what “just” is isn’t always justice.

And yet the dawn is ours before we knew it.

Somehow, we do it.

Somehow, we weathered and witnessed a nation that isn’t broken, but simply unfinished.

We, the successors of a country and a time where a skinny Black girl descended from slaves and raised by a single mother can dream of becoming president, only to find herself reciting for one.

And, yes, we are far from polished, far from pristine, but that doesn’t mean we are striving to form a union that is perfect.

We are striving to forge our union with purpose.

To compose a country committed to all cultures, colors, characters and conditions of man.

And so, we lift our gaze, not to what stands between us, but what stands before us.

We close the divide because we know to put our future first, we must first put our differences aside.

We lay down our arms so we can reach out our arms to one another.

We seek harm to none and harmony for all.

Let the globe, if nothing else, say this is true.

That even as we grieved, we grew.

That even as we hurt, we hoped.

That even as we tired, we tried.

That we’ll forever be tied together, victorious.

Not because we will never again know defeat, but because we will never again sow division.

Scripture tells us to envision that everyone shall sit under their own vine and fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid.

If we’re to live up to our own time, then victory won’t lie in the blade, but in all the bridges we’ve made.

That is the promise to glade, the hill we climb, if only we dare.

It’s because being American is more than a pride we inherit.

It’s the past we step into and how we repair it.

We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation, rather than share it.

Would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy.

And this effort very nearly succeeded.

But while democracy can be periodically delayed, it can never be permanently defeated.

In this truth, in this faith we trust, for while we have our eyes on the future, history has its eyes on us.

This is the era of just redemption.

We feared at its inception.

We did not feel prepared to be the heirs of such a terrifying hour.

But within it we found the power to author a new chapter, to offer hope and laughter to ourselves.

So, while once we asked, how could we possibly prevail over catastrophe, now we assert, how could catastrophe possibly prevail over us?

We will not march back to what was, but move to what shall be: a country that is bruised but whole, benevolent but bold, fierce and free.

We will not be turned around or interrupted by intimidation because we know our inaction and inertia will be the inheritance of the next generation, become the future.

Our blunders become their burdens.

But one thing is certain.

If we merge mercy with might, and might with right, then love becomes our legacy and change our children’s birthright.

So let us leave behind a country better than the one we were left.

Every breath from my bronze-pounded chest, we will raise this wounded world into a wondrous one.

We will rise from the golden hills of the West.

We will rise from the windswept Northeast where our forefathers first realized revolution.

We will rise from the lake-rimmed cities of the Midwestern states.

We will rise from the sun-baked South.

We will rebuild, reconcile, and recover. And every known nook of our nation and every corner called our country, our people diverse and beautiful, will emerge battered and beautiful.

When day comes, we step out of the shade aflame and unafraid.

The new dawn blooms as we free it.

For there is always light, if only we’re brave enough to see it.

If only we’re brave enough to be it.

_____________________

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick 

Historical Theologian

“History gives answers to those who know how to ask questions.”

 

 

First some wonderful news! Dame Sarah Elisabeth Mullally, an Anglican bishop and former nurse, was officially confirmed on Wednesday January 28, 2026, as the first female Archbishop of Canterbury and the first woman to head the Church of England, the mother church of the 85-million-strong global Anglican communion. She has become the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury.

Today however I really want to focus – for the last time since I have addressed this already, but many new readers of my blog have asked me to write about it — on women’s ordination in my Roman Catholic tradition.

According to a 2025 Pew Research Center study, close to 64% of U.S. Catholics believe the Catholic Church should allow women deacons and priests. Officially, however, the Catholic Church still does not approve of women’s ordination.

A Vatican commission studying the possibility of female deacons reported that the current state of historical and theological research “excludes the possibility of proceeding” toward admitting women to the diaconate. In a letter sharing the results of its work with Pope Leo XIV and released by the Vatican on December 4, 2025, the commission reported a 7-1 vote in favor of a statement concluding that the church cannot currently move toward admitting women to the third degree of holy orders, the diaconate. The argument was that “the masculinity of Christ, and therefore the masculinity of those who receive Holy Orders, is not accidental but is an integral part of sacramental identity.”

Well life goes on. We need to build a better future; and women’s ordination is an essential part of that.

First, I offer a bit of older church history. In 1994, to officially stamp-out what he considered a rapidly spreading “deviant behavior” and unorthodox thought and teaching, Pope John Paul II declared women’s ordination a closed matter. In his  letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, he wrote: “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance…I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” The Roman Catholic prohibition of women’s ordination argued from a perception of divinely-constituted gender roles: the belief that masculinity was integral to the ministry of both Jesus and the apostles. Being a woman is fine, the churchmen said, but if a person is going to act “in persona Christi” (in the person of Christ) that person needs to have male genitalia.

Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and apparently Pope Francis have all believed, when it comes to priesthood, that there is an essential difference between being male and being female. They believed that maleness is necessary for priesthood just as water is necessary for baptism. Why? Because, they argue, that’s the way the historical Jesus set it up. All of this is summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (issued by Pope John Paul in 1992): “Only a baptized man (vir in Latin) validly receives sacred ordination.” The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason, the ordination of women is not possible.”

Interesting. I remember very clearly the official declaration of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1976 that no valid scriptural reason existed for not ordaining women. With all due respect, even popes need remedial theological education. Or they at least need well educated and up-to-date advisors and ghost writers. The Pontifical Biblical Commission was formally established by Pope Leo XIII (1810-1903) in October 1902. Its purpose was and has always been to “ensure the proper Roman Catholic interpretation and defense of Sacred Scripture.“

Very often those who oppose women’s ordination argue that Jesus chose only male disciples so therefore all priests and bishops must be men. The historical testimony, however, does not confirm this. The historical Jesus was not a male chauvinist.

Jesus’ disciples were a dynamic group of young men AND women, most probably in their early or late teens. We know from the Martha/Mary account in Luke chapter 10 that Mary, sitting at the feet of Jesus, was truly a disciple. 

In each of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ Resurrection, there is a common thread: the first witnesses to the reality of the empty tomb were women. 

Yes indeed, among Jesus’ disciples, later called apostles when sent out to preach the Good News, there were men and women. Certainly, Mary the Magdalene was a key disciple and has often been called the “apostle to the apostles.” Paul, in his Letter to the Romans, refers to Priscilla and Aquila. He praises the woman Junia as a prominent apostle and Phoebe, a leader from the church at Cenchreae, a port city near Corinth.

As far as ordination is concerned, as I have often written, the historical Jesus did not ordain anyone. Ordination came several decades after Jesus’ Last Supper. When it was established, it was not about sacramental power. It was simply a form of quality control insuring qualified and competent ministers.

In the early Christian communities, long before ordination came into being, male and female leaders, selected by the communities, presided at Eucharistic celebrations. There were male and female ministerial leaders. Much later in the history of the church, misogyny slipped in and an all-male clerical culture took over. Priesthood then became male-hood.

A major development in the contemporary experience of women’s ordination came in 2002 with the ordination of the “Danube Seven,” a group of seven women from Germany, Austria, and the United States who were validly ordained as priests on a ship cruising the Danube River on 29 June 2002. It was an historic moment. A year later, two of the original group were ordained bishops.

The Danube Seven launched what has become a prophetic Roman Catholic women priests movement.

Although officially excommunicated, the RCWP (Roman Catholic Women Priests) and ARCWP (Association of Roman Catholic Women Priests) are two branches that have developed from the ordination of the seven women on the Danube. Both groups have members in the U.S.A., and both are international. RCWP women priests and bishops minister in over 34 U.S. states and are also present in Canada, Europe, South and Central America, South Africa, the Philippines, and Taiwan. Today there are 270 Women Priests and 15 Women Bishops worldwide.

Some Roman Catholic observers suggest that it might be better right now to focus on women’s ordination to the diaconate. This was the focus of the 2011 book: Women Deacons: Past, Present, Future, by Gary Macy, Phyllis Zagano, and William T. Ditewig. Right now, however, Pope Leo XIV is not inclined to move in that direction.

In an interview with Elise Ann Allen of Crux a few months ago, Pope Leon ended up talking about about women deacons. “At the moment,” he said “I do not have any intention of changing the teaching of the Church on the topic.”  Nevertheless, there is ample evidence of women deacons in the East from the earliest days of the Christianity to this day. We know women deacons existed early in the West as well. In fact, there is ample evidence of women deacons for over half of Christian history, until the twelfth century.

The historical diaconate was both male and female.

“Study after study has investigated the evidence concerning women deacons in both the Eastern and Western Churches, leaving little doubt that women deacons existed for centuries in Christianity.” Gary Macy, American theologian and historian specializing in medieval Christianity and the history of women’s ordination in the Western Church. He is professor emeritus of Theology at Santa Clara University.

The earliest reference to women as deacons appears in the Letter of Paul to the Romans: “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.”  (Rom 16:1–2)

The most famous woman deacon in the Western Church was Queen Radegund, from the German land Thuringia, the wife of King Clothar I (511–58). She dramatically left the king in about 550 and demanded that she be ordained a deacon by Médard, bishop of Noyon in northern France, who, despite his fear of the king’s retribution, complied.

So, women deacons were there, working in both the Eastern and Western Churches for centuries before slowly disappearing from the scene around the twelfth century. Historians are sure they were there.

The ordination ceremony for the ordination of a woman deacon was dropped in the thirteenth-century Roman Pontifical — the official liturgical book of the Roman Rite in the Catholic Church containing rites, ceremonies, and blessings performed primarily by bishops — and does not appear again. Not surprising, the twelfth century also contains the last reference to a woman deacon, Heloise of Paris. By the thirteenth century, this office had disappeared from the Western Church. So, women deacons were there, working in both the Eastern and Western Churches for centuries before slowly disappearing from the scene around the twelfth century.

It seems that the major reason women stopped being ordained deacons in both the East and West was the gradual introduction of purity laws found in the Hebrew Scriptures. I call it religious misogyny. Menstruation and childbirth, very strangely,  were seen as impediments to women serving at the altar or to their eventually being ordained.

This is not the end of the story. With correct history, courage, and conviction, we move forward.

 

• Jack

 

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

Email: jadleuven@gmail.com

Last week we looked at what I would call theological twists and turns about human sexuality.

Over the past two thousand years, in fact, Christianity has gone through a number of theological twists and turns. Most have involved a shifting focus on either “orthopraxy” or “orthodoxy.”

In a life-centered Christian theology, the primary focus is orthopraxy which means “correct conduct.” Orthodoxy, on the other hand, means and emphasizes “correct belief.”

Orthopraxy – correct behavior — was certainly fundamental in the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth: being courageous, compassionate, and inspiring in the midst of life’s ups and downs. Jesus certainly experienced life’s ups and downs.

In John’s Gospel, Jesus says: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12) In orthopraxy, Christians do not walk in darkness but like the Good Samaritan they live out the Sermon on the Mount by caring for the marginalized, promoting compassion and peace, and sharing God’s love.

While Christianity eventually developed strict creeds, it began however with a strong focus on action and lifestyle—orthopraxy — following the “way” of Jesus

Orthopraxy is what we should be about today. Nevertheless, in Roman Catholic history the focus on an unquestioning acceptance of orthodoxy created an atmosphere of thought control and, quite often, fear for those who dared to question. Growing up as a Catholic teenager, I remember regularly saying the Act of Faith prayer, in which I so fervently prayed: “I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because you have revealed them, who are eternal truth and wisdom, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. In this faith I intend to live and die.” I was a very pious young man.

Orthodoxy, however, is not life-centered but doctrine-centered. When orthodoxy is stressed, people are taught the official doctrine and must then unquestioningly accept that doctrine. Many people, however, can know and accept doctrine while still not living and behaving as Christians.

In the early twentieth century, the Catholic stress on orthodoxy was quite strong. From 1910 to 1967, all Roman Catholic “clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries” had to take the Oath Against Modernism, because theological modernism was considered dangerous. It interpreted Christian teaching by taking into consideration modern knowledge, science, and ethics. It emphasized the importance of reason and experience over doctrinal authority.

The Oath Against Modernism marked a high point in Pope Pius X’s campaign against “modernism” which he denounced as heretical. Although Pius X died in 1914, after being Pope for eleven years, his very far right influence on Catholic thought control lasted a long time.

Well, in the fullness of time, John Dick grew up and became an open-minded professor of historical theology in a “philosophical-theological seminary.” Fortunately, he never had to take the Oath Against Modernism. He did occasionally have to confront a couple bishops who strongly resonated with Pius X’s narrow vision and accused him of heretical teachings. One — now a retired East Coast cardinal — even tried, without success, to get him fired from the Catholic University of Leuven.

A bit of church history: The focus on a strongly enforced orthodoxy in Christianity began in 310 CE when the Roman Emperor Constantine (272-337) legalized Christianity in his Roman Empire. Although he was not baptized until close to death in 337, Constantine was very pragmatic about Christianity and wanted to use it for his own political agenda. He and his mother Helena (Flavia Julia Helena, c. 246–330) were already in the process of making it the state religion of the Roman Empire. Christianity did become the official state religion of the Roman Empire in 380 CE upon the issuance of the Edict of Thessalonica by Emperor Theodosius I.

Stressing his pragmatic use of Christianity, Constantine organized the First Council of Nicaea, from May to August 325 in Nicaea, which is modern-day İznik, Turkey. Christian bishops had to attend. Most significantly, the Council of Nicaea issued the very first uniform statement of orthodox Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. Anyone who refused to obediently accept the Nicene Creed was excommunicated and exiled…or worse.

It is especially significant that the Nicene Creed says nothing about orthopraxy: nothing about correct Christian behavior. After Nicaea, Constantine continued his program, a profound “Constantinian shift” turning the previously pacifist and persecuted Christianity into a religion of military might and imperial power. Many historians wonder of course if Constantine was a genuine Christian believer or a user of Christianity to further his goals.

Constantine gave the world its first experience of “Christian Nationalism.” But, as Fr. Richard Rohr (born 1943) wrote a few years ago: “When Christians began to gain positions of power and privilege, they also began to ignore segments of Scriptures, especially the Sermon on the Mount. This is what allowed ‘Christian’ empires throughout history to brutalize and oppress others in the name of God.”

Christian nationalism is a problem around the world today of course. In North America, Project 2025, a 900-plus page policy blueprint organized by American right-wing think tank, The Heritage Foundation, is a plan to embed Christian Nationalist ideology into the federal government under the incumbent presidential administration.

But I would ask if Christian nationalists today are genuine believers or users of Christian rhetoric to further their own unchristian objectives.

• Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

  Email: jadleuven@gmail.com

As an historical theologian, I continue to study the evolution of Christian beliefs, doctrines, and interpretations of Scripture across different eras. This week, several readers have asked me for a contemporary clarification of Roman Catholic perspectives on LGBTQ people.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a reference work that summarizes the Catholic Church’s doctrine. It was promulgated by Pope John Paul II (1920-2095) in 1992. The Catechism names “homosexual acts” as “intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law,” and names “homosexual tendencies” as “objectively disordered.”

In his last personal work, Memory and Identity, published in 2005, Pope John Paul II referred to the “pressures” on the European Parliament to permit “homosexual marriage.’’ He wrote: “It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.”

Pope Benedict XVI (1927-2022) basically agreed with John Paul II, holding the traditional Catholic position that while individuals with homosexual inclinations should be treated with respect and compassion, homosexual acts and same-sex marriage were considered “intrinsically disordered”

Pope Francis (1936 – April 21, 2025) adopted a significantly more accommodating tone on LGBTQ topics than his predecessors. In July 2013, his televised “Who am I to judge?” statement was widely reported in the international press, becoming one of his most famous statements on LGBTQ people. Nevertheless, on topics directly effecting LGBTQ people, his words and actions, during his 12-year leadership, were mixed at best.

On September 25, 2023, in a responsum to conservative cardinals before the 16th World Synod of Bishops, Francis expressed an openness to blessings for same-sex couples as long as they did not misrepresent the Catholic position that marriage is not possible for same-sex people and can only be between one man and one woman.

On May 27, 2024, during a closed-door meeting of the Episcopal Conference of Italy, Pope Francis, using words that denigrated gay men, strongly opposed the admittance of gay men as seminarians.

On July 30, 2025, in a wide-ranging interview with Crux Senior Correspondent Elise Ann Allen, Pope Leo XIV (born 1955 and elected pope on May 8, 2025)  said that his approach to LGBTQ Catholics would be similar to that of his predecessor, saying the Church must accept “everyone, everyone, everyone.” Yet, he rejected doctrinal changes such as recognizing same-sex marriage, asserting that “the teaching of the Church will remain unchanged.”

Nevertheless, starting especially in 2023, elements of change have begun to appear in the Catholic Church.

 

On March 10^th 2023, for example, the German Catholic bishops approved same-sex blessings, as part of a vote by the Synodal Path. The resolution called for blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples to be officially allowed in German Catholic dioceses.

An especially significant moment came on September 6, 2025, when LGBTQ Catholics in rainbow attire took part in the first officially recognized LGBTQ pilgrimage to Rome during the Roman Catholic Jubilee Year. The pilgrimage included a procession through the Holy Door of St. Peter’s Basilica. The event saw over a thousand participants from around the world. A Mass was celebrated for the pilgrims in Rome’s Church of the Gesù, presided over by Bishop Francesco Savino, Bishop of the Diocese of Cassano and Vice President of the Italian Bishops’ Conference for Southern Italy.

In his homily, Bishop Savino spoke about restoring dignity to those who have been denied it. “Before sharing what the Word of God generated in me and what the Spirit generated in me, I would like to obediently listen to its action and invite you all to look at each other. Look at each other! Look at each other! We are a group of faces facing. We are a group of real stories. We are a group of people who ask with dignity, authenticity, and truth to be recognized. Each one with their own story. Each one with their own wounds. But each with their own beauty, with the beauty that lives within each of us, regardless of our fragilities. And we want to leave this celebration more joyful and more hopeful than ever. We want to leave convinced that God loves us, of a singular and unique love, of an asymmetrical love, of a love without conditions.”

Yes. There has been positive development in the Roman Catholic understanding of human sexuality. I was thinking recently about my theologian friend Todd A. Salzman and his colleague Michael G. Lawler, at Creighton University, in Omaha, Nebraska. In 2008, they published their ground-breaking book The Sexual Person (Georgetown University Press). They stressed that two principles had captured the essence of the official Catholic position on the morality of sexuality: first, that any human genital act must occur within the framework of heterosexual marriage; second, each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life.

Remaining firmly within the Catholic tradition, they contended that the Catholic Church has been inconsistent in its teaching by adopting a dynamic, historically conscious anthropology and worldview on social ethics and the interpretation of scripture while adopting a static, classicist anthropology and worldview on sexual ethics. While some documents from the 1962-1965 Vatican II, like Gaudium et spes (“the marital act promotes self-giving by which spouses enrich each other”), gave hope for a renewed understanding of sexuality, the church had not carried out the full implications of this approach.

In short, Salzman and Lawler emphasized relationships, not acts, and recognized Christianity’s historically and culturally conditioned understanding of human sexuality.The Sexual Person draws historically, methodologically, and anthropologically from the best of Catholic tradition.It provides a context for theological conversations between “traditionalists” and “revisionists” regarding marriage, cohabitation, homosexuality, reproductive technologies, and what it means to be human.

In a 2024 article in Theological Studies, Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler stressed: “There is ambivalence in definitions of Catholic sexual human dignity and Catholic social human dignity, which lead to inconsistencies in the foundation and justification of moral doctrine.” They warn about “harm that results from inconsistent definitions of human dignity in doctrinal teaching.”

Their most recent book, which I strongly recommend is Sexual and Gender Doctrinal Language: A Source of Pain and Trauma in the Catholic Church (Paulist Press, 2025). Here they underline that official doctrinal language on sexual and gender issues causes pain and trauma for many contemporary Catholics. Relying on the sources of ethical knowledge (tradition, scripture, reason, and experience), Todd and Michael propose revisions to Catholic anthropology, ecclesiology, and ethical methodology supporting those doctrines. This would continue to move the Catholic Church forward and to realize the synodal ecclesiology and “new pastoral methods” of Pope Francis (1936-2025), as exemplified in his April 8, 2016, apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.

In his foreword to the book, James F. Keenan, SJ, moral theologian, bioethicist, and professor at Boston College, writes: “We ethicists believe that we must find the truth, and in part that means naming not only what is lacking, but what was not virtuously expressed. In this work, Lawler and Salzman offer their insights into the ongoing discourse to find virtuous pathways for contemporary Christians on the way of the Lord.”

Roman Catholic institutional change often comes slowly. But it does happen.

Jack

___________________

Dr. John A. Dick 

“History gives answers to those who know how to ask questions.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reflecting about news reports around the world this past week, I was thinking about “truth.” Two historic quotations came to mind. The first, from the American writer William Faulkner (1897- 1962): “Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world would do this, it would change the earth.”

The second, from Hannah Arendt (1906 – 1975), the German historian and philosopher, who became interested in how the most outrageous lies get a political hold over people, ever since Nazi lies about the Jews and intellectuals drove her from Berlin in 1933 after her arrest by the Gestapo. 

Hannah Arendt wrote: “This constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie, but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore. A people that can no longer distinguish between truth and lies cannot distinguish between right and wrong. And such people, deprived of the power to think and judge, are, without knowing and willing it, completely subjected to the rule of lies. With such people, you can do whatever you want.”

When people lose the ability to be critical observers and critical thinkers, they become unable to distinguish between facts and falsehoods. They can no longer recognize “the big lie.”

“The big lie” is a great distortion of truth. It was the propaganda technique, coined by Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) in his 1925 book Mein Kampf. There he wrote: “The great masses of the people… will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.”

Hitler stressed that if a known falsehood was repeated regularly and treated as true, “the big lie” would be taken for granted and no longer questioned.

Confronting today’s “big lies,” we all need to exercise critical thinking skills: observing and asking critical questions. What is the source of the information? Is it a reliable source? People who spread fake news and “alternative facts” sometimes create web pages, newspaper stories, or AI-generated images that look official, but are not.

I very much believe the old Latin proverb Veritas Vincit (“Truth Prevails”). But it can only happen if we all work together.

What sources of news can one trust? A credible news report will include a variety of facts, quotes from bonafide experts, official statistics, or detailed and corroborated eye-witness accounts from people on the scene. If these are missing, one should question the report’s truth and accuracy. Does the evidence prove that something definitely happened? Or, have the facts been selected or “twisted” to back up a particular fabricated viewpoint?

As a good friend observed this past week: “Now, as a major diplomatic situation unfolds, Brian Burch, the American ambassador to the Vatican, has chosen to ignore Pope Leo’s public declaration that the sovereignty of Venezuela must be restored and respected. Instead, he asserts that the Catholic Church and the United States are ‘on the same page’ regarding America’s invasion of Venezuela.”

Ultimately, people will come to the realization that denying the truth doesn’t change the facts. But sometimes the process goes painfully slow.

I often think about the observation of Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), the Indian lawyer, anti-colonial nationalist, and political ethicist: “When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it–always.”

• Jack

 

Over the 2025 Christmas holidays, contemporary American political leadership, with its staunch support for Christian Nationalist Authoritarianism seems to have been working hard to transform American society and even re-write American history.

Christian Nationalist Authoritarianism promotes a specific kind of conservative Christian civic life and argues that only “Christians” can be “true Americans.” It merges right-wing religious ideology with anti-democratic, pro-authoritarian political views, as it pursues the Seven Mountain Mandate: a belief, promoted by the New Apostolic Reformation movement (NAR), that the current political administration has a divine commission to take over and control the “seven spheres” of society: family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business, and government.

I remember the words of Charlie Kirk (1993-2025), speaking on February 27, 2020, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Fort Washington, Maryland: “Finally we have a president that understands the seven mountains of cultural influence.” Very interestingly a January 2024 poll by Denison University, a a private liberal arts college in Granville, Ohio in Granville, Ohio found that 41% of American Christians believe in the Seven Mountain Mandate.

Promoters of Christian Nationalist Authoritarianism are actually quite ignorant about American history. The incumbent American Vice President is a good example. Speaking at the Turning Point USA  [Turning Point was founded by Charlie Kirk] “AmericaFest” conference on December 21, 2025, the Vice President said, to great applause: “The only thing that has truly served as an anchor of the United States of America is that we have been, and by the grace of God we always will be, a Christian nation.” But that is really not true.

The Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776) appealed to “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and asserted that all people have basic rights “endowed by their Creator.” The Founders, however, did not want the nation to be controlled by theocrats. They understood the importance of separating “church” and “state” as important for the protection of “church” and for the protection of the “state.”

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted on December 15, 1791, prevents Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It is one of the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.

Already in 1790, the year after he took office as the nation’s First President, George Washington assured a Jewish congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, that in the United States of America, “all possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.” The Government of the United States, he wrote, “gives to bigotry no sanction” and “to persecution no assistance.” He hoped that Jewish Americans woukd “continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

The contemporary United States is a country that is 71% Christian. But more than 20% of older Americans today have no religious preference. Some are atheists or agnostics. Others simply identify as “nothing in particular.” Over 45% of today’s young adult Americans, aged 20 to 34, however, identify as “non-religious,” a significant shift from about thirty years ago.

Contemporary Christian Nationalist Authoritarianism is a dangerous socio-political virus. It not only threatens democracy and denigrates specific groups of people but advocates behavior contrary to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Yes. There will be a lot to think about and react to in 2026, the year that we will celebrate the 250^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, when British colonists on the North American continent launched the experiment of a government based on the rule of law created by the people themselves. I have no doubts that 2026 will be an incredibly significant year.

A good 2026 new year’s resolution for all of us is making a renewed commitment to see and reflect as we work together with compassion, understanding, and mutual respect.

• Jack

 

 

.

My 2025 Christmas reflection is “Journey of the Magi” by Thomas Stearns Eliot (1888 – 1965), better known as “T.S. Eliot.”

Eliot was born in St. Louis, Missouri but moved to England in 1914 at the age of 25. He became a British citizen in 1927. That same year he converted to the Anglo-Catholic Church, and wrote “Journey of the Magi.” Eliot described his religious beliefs as “a Catholic cast of mind, a Calvinist heritage, and a Puritanical temperament.” 

Eliot’s “Journey of the Magi” retells the symbolic story of the biblical Magi who, according to the Gospel of Matthew, travelled to Bethlehem to visit the newborn Jesus. The poem is a narrative, told from the point of view of one of the Magi. It expresses themes of alienation, regret, and a feeling of powerlessness in a world that has changed. In 1927, T.S. Eliot’s spiritual world had changed significantly as well.

The birth of Jesus was the death of the world of magic, astrology, and paganism (cf Colossians 2:20). Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection brought change, hope, and new life.

The speaker, recalling his journey in old age, suggests that after that birth his world had died, and he had little to do but wait for his own death and movement to new life. The poem is not pessimistic. But the journey’s physical hardships mirror the internal struggle of letting go of old beliefs for a deeper truth, revealing that spiritual awakening can be a traumatic but necessary path to a new meaning. T.S. Eliot’s spiritual awakening was his letting go of Unitarianism and becoming an Anglo-Catholic Christian.

T.S. Eliot is my favorite poet. His lines from the poem “Little Gidding” inspired my blog: “For last year’s words belong to last year’s language. And next year’s words await another voice. And to make an end is to make a beginning.”

 

JOURNEY OF THE MAGI

 

A cold coming we had of it,

Just the worst time of the year

For a journey, and such a long journey:

The ways deep and the weather sharp,

The very dead of winter.’

And the camels galled, sorefooted, refractory,

Lying down in the melting snow.

There were times we regretted.

The summer palaces on slopes, the terraces,

And the silken girls bringing sherbet.

Then the camel men cursing and grumbling

and running away, and wanting their liquor and women,

And the night-fires going out, and the lack of shelters,

And the cities hostile and the towns unfriendly.

And the villages dirty and charging high prices.

A hard time we had of it.

At the end we preferred to travel all night,

Sleeping in snatches,

With the voices singing in our ears, saying

That this was all folly.

Then at dawn we came down to a temperate valley,

Wet, below the snow line, smelling of vegetation;

With a running stream and a water-mill beating the darkness,

And three trees on the low sky,

And an old white horse galloped away in the meadow.

Then we came to a tavern with vine-leaves over the lintel,

Six hands at an open door dicing for pieces of silver,

And feet kicking the empty wine-skins.

But there was no information, and so we continued

And arriving at evening, not a moment too soon

Finding the place; it was (you might say) satisfactory.

All this was a long time ago, I remember,

And I would do it again, but set down.

This set down.

This: were we led all that way for

Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly

We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,

But had thought they were different; this Birth was

Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.

We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,

But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,

With an alien people clutching their gods.

I should be glad of another death.

My warmest regards to all and every good wish for Christmas and the New Year 2026.  I will be with family and friends for a couple of weeks but return to Another Voice on January 7th.

• Jack