Pre-Conference Process

Pre-Conference Process

New Woman, New Church, New Priestly Ministry

Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Ordination of Roman Catholic Women
November 1978, Baltimore, U.S.A. pp 159-172.
Published on our website with permission of the Women's Ordination Conference

Pre-Conference Process Committee
Gratia L’Esperance, RSM. Jean Gehret, Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz, Susan O’Donnell, Virginia Power (Chairperson), Margaret Rot, Gloria Maria Ysasi-Diaz,

Writers:
Jean Gehret, Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz, Virginia Power.

What follows is a report, a synthesis of data collected through a reflection process begun eight months before the conference took place. No attempt is made to draw conclusions or to analyze the data collected by Women’s Ordination Conference in preparation for the Baltimore Conference through what came to be known as the “Pre-Conference Process.”

The Process was designed as a consciousness-raising tool, intended to provide theologians with the lived experience of the people regarding present priesthood and women in ministry. It attempted to move the participants to consider what a renewed priestly ministry and a renewed Church would look like. Faithful to the process of “conscientization,” the process starts by providing tools for coming to understand and grasp one’s own position regarding priesthood and women in ministry. The process was intended, therefore, to encourage reflection, self-understanding and growth in the awareness of women’s role and position in the Church today. The process was not set up as a psychological or sociological study though undoubtedly it provides insights in those areas.

The Process was also designed to collect data. Because God’s revelation continues in the lives of the people, WOC sought to gather that “revelation.” The data was to be used by theologians as “raw material.” This was their “research.” We asked two women theologians to reflect on it and begin to help to outline what a renewed priestly ministry will look like. The data gathered was intended to be the basis for their reflection and not material to substantiate their understandings.

The Pre-Conference Process, which consists of a series of questions, was printed in the newsletter which is sent to the membership of WOC. Those who received them were invited to form groups to reflect and discuss the Process questions. Those who wished to take part were asked to write for a Reporting Packet, to be completed and returned by June 15, 1978.

The Committee received a total of 107 requests for Reporting Packets. Of these 53 Packets were returned and these form the basis for our investigation.

The ages of the respondents were as follows:

women 11-20 1.2%
men 11-20 1.2%
women 21-30 15.2%
men 21-30 4.1%
women 31-40 34.9%
men 31-40 6.7%
women 41-50 22.0%
men 41-50 4.3%
women 51-60 8.02%
men 51-60 1.2%
women 61-70 2.6%
men 61-70 0.6%
women 71+ 0.2%
men 71+ -

The residence of the respondents were:

Urban 51.0% Suburban 29.0% Rural 5.7%

The incomes of the respondents were:

Upper 4.3%, Middle 49.7%, Low 19.9%

The respondents reported their race as follows:

White 72.6%, Black 3.7%, Natural American 1.6%, Hispanic 4.1%, Oriental 1.6%, Other -.

Educationally the respondents reported the following:

Elementary parochial 35.3%
  public 23.4%
High School Catholic 34.5%
  public 25.7%
College Catholic 34.9%
  public 20.7%
Grade School Catholic 22.2%
  public 11.9%
   
High School graduates 20.1%
College graduates 30.8%
With Advanced Degrees 38.0%

We encountered some problems in attempting to compile accurate sociological data from the Reports returned. Six of the 53 reports were either missing demographic data altogether, or presented their data in such a way as to be unusable. In addition, not all groups answered all questions. As a result, our percentages rarely equal 100 percent.

The general profile of respondents is that the largest number were middle-class, white, middle-aged laywomen living in urban areas, who attend weekly liturgy in their own parish church and have a mixed educational experience.

The profile shows the following: a total of 47 groups consisting of 486 people participated in the Pre-Conference Process. Of these 82.3 percent were female and 17.6 percent were male. The females were 53 percent laywomen and 27.7 percent nuns. The males were laymen 9.6 percent, priests 5.7 percent and brothers .2 percent.

Of our respondents, 71.8 percent attend weekly liturgy and 6.3 percent do not; 3.7 percent attend liturgy occasionally and 1.6 percent never attend liturgy.

Of those respondents attending weekly liturgy, 38.4 percent attend in their home parish; 9.6 percent attend in parishes other than their own; 13.7 percent attend in a campus setting; 6.3 percent attend in Convents; 0.6 percent attend other traditions and 5.5 percent attend in other settings. Listed among “others” were International Parish, Hospital Chapel, Monastery, Living-room liturgies and special non-territoriai parish communities.

While this investigation has brought forth attitudes which are held by these respondents as a group, it has also indicated that further analysis of the data available through this study might valuably examine how differences in attitudes are linked to different demographic factors.

The first meeting opened with the question: “How do you experience the present priesthood?” Sub-questions were given to help the group focus its answer. These questions were intended to help the group analyze their understanding of priesthood according to their experience rather than through their readings about priesthood. With few exceptions the groups did stay with their experiences of the present priesthood.

In general, answers to the question, “in what ways did your group relate to those in the present priesthood?” identified what present priests do. Seventeen groups mentioned “liturgy” or “Mass” as part of their answer and 16 groups mentioned “sacraments.” Eight groups indicated priests were seen as “teachers” while seven groups talked about priests as “counselors.”

Eight groups pointed out that priests were “friends” and five groups called them “co-workers.” Three groups saw priests as “authority figures” and four mentioned “meetings” and/or “committees.”

While several groups talked about functions the priests perform, two groups actually called them “functionaries,” while two called them “administrators.” One group mentioned they were “concerned with finances.”

Five groups used the word “leader,” two used “spiritual leader,” and two used “leader of prayer group.” Twice were they mentioned in relation to social activities.

A few of the groups saw the priests more in the line of “being” than of “doing.” These groups called them searchers, sharers of life. Other groups saw them in the more traditional roles: shepherd, giver of permission, dispenser of grace, represents Christ, retreat director, home visits, and so forth. Only once were priests called “catalyst, enabler of ministry and prophet.”

Repeatedly the priests were seen as aloof, distant, difficult to get to know and relate to, inaccessible, and “failing to bring unity among men and women, between persons and God, between themselves and those they are called to serve.” Many of the comments pointed out that the hierarchical structure had to do with this separateness between priest and people. Words like, “pedestal, idol, higher calling,” appeared in several reports.

Another reason pointed out was the lack of emotional involvement of the priests — “afraid to interact and relate.”

To the question regarding joining or separating the person from the function, 29 groups out of 45 groups tended to join the person to the function, while 13 groups tended to separate the function from the person.

The list of words used to describe, talk about and/or qualify present-day priest and priesthood is extensive.

Thirteen groups used the term “service,” while seven spoke of “healing,” six mentioned “authority, exclusive/caste system, minister, sacrament,” and five used “power.” Thirty-nine other terms were used by at least two groups to talk about, describe or qualify present-day priests and/or priesthood. Of those, 12 terms are negative, i.e., distant, fragmented, insecure, irrelevant, ritualistic, hierarchical, paternalistic. The 27 remaining terms were positive ones, i.e., active, brother, openness, Christ-like, human. Among these positive terms are purely descriptive terms: administrator, counselor, liturgy, teacher, and so forth. Over 100 other terms were used by at least one group. This immense variety mainly reflects different emphasis of the characteristics and qualities already described.

In the end one observes a balance. Negative terms such as arrogant, decadent, functionally ineffective, immature, insensitive, narrow, out-dated, parched, self-serving, unreachable, unwilling to change, are in marked contrast to positive ones: totalness of being, community, concern, consciousness, enabling, giving, holy, inspirational leader, person-oriented, sensitive.

A series of terms indicate the groups’ awareness of the difficulties experienced by individual priests in the present system, i.e., caught, disappointed, imprisoned/entrapped, oppressed by official Church, stifled, suffering, trapped, unfree, wounded person. Other groups keyed on the needs of those in the present priesthood: in need of achievement, need for affirmation, education, healing, need to be ministered to.

Many of the groups used the same or similar words in describing Church as they had used in describing priesthood. The term most often used was “community,” with “people of God” coming in second place. Terms relating to family and people in general were included several times.

The Church was related to a place only three times. The idea of hierarchy was pointed out three times; a fourth group described the Church as a “restrictive hierarchical structure.” Two of the groups referred to “pyramid” in their understanding of Church and seven groups spoke of the Church as “institution.”

The participating groups used this question to identify not only concepts they have of the Church but also positive and negative characteristics as well as to express their hopes and frustrations. A few examples follow:

Some groups pointed out the need there exists for “accountability to the people by the priest;” one group wondered: “would women priests add just another step to the ladder?” Some mention was made of the whiteness and middle-classness of the Church: “Official Church often consolidates the existing structures in society thus oppressing women and other groups, i.e., working-class is alienated from middle-class Church."

The second question in the process was: “How are you ministering and/or experiencing the ministry of women in the Church today?” Sub-questions formulated to help those participating flesh out their answers to the questions were:

a) How did your group describe the ministry of women today?

b) Did your group believe this ministry is limited by women not being ordained?

c) How did your group describe the style of women’s ministry?
How did your group define women’s understanding of ministry?
Did your group perceive a difference between men and women’s style and understanding of ministry?
If differences were noted, which ones were most often mentioned?
What other thoughts did your group discuss in relation to Question 2?

Most of the groups answered the question, “how did your group describe the ministry of women today,” by listing jobs or functions performed by women today. Hardly any role was left out. One group simply mentioned: “Everything but running the parish and saying Mass and hearing confession.” Some, however, described the qualities or characteristics of women’s ministry today. The latter ones will be included as given at the end of this section and are not included in the compilation of functions/roles and described characteristics.

Twenty-two groups mentioned roles related to education. CCD teacher/coordinator was reported by 14 groups. One group specifically indicated “sacramental preparation” as the area of involvement and five groups mentioned simply “education,” One group included specifically “school teachers,” another one talked about women “training people for ministry,” and a third group mentioned “Bible group leader.”

While only six groups pointed out the fact that women are ministering in prayer groups, some identifying them as leaders of those groups, at least five other groups described in varying terms women’s involvement in “prayer.”

Twelve groups specifically reported women’s involvement with the sick. Five mentioned “hospital chaplaincy;” two talked about “hospital visitation” and two others mentioned “nursing.” The other three groups used “ministry to the sick” to describe the function. Six other groups said women were involved in “healing” without clarifying the nature of the healing. From the context in which the comments were found, “healing” seems to relate to spiritual and psychological healing but this could not be ascertained.

The area of counseling/spiritual direction was mentioned ten times. Five other groups talked about women as retreat directors and/or working in teams giving retreats. In not so precise phraseology this whole area was mentioned by at least ten other groups. Words such as “listening,” “caring,” “touching,” “nurturing” were found repeatedly. Reading through all the reports it becomes clear that this area of ministry is the one uppermost in the people’s minds when they think about women in ministry.

Liturgy was another area indicated repeatedly. Fourteen mentioned women lectors: 12 talked about women as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist; two women homilists were noted. Four groups indicated women work in the area of liturgical music. One group said women were ushers, two noted women are sacristans, and two other ones talked about women servers. Five groups carefully called women “liturgists” or “planners of liturgy.” In all, women’s role in liturgical function was mentioned over 50 times by at least half of the groups that participated.

Women’s involvement in parish councils. Church boards, Church organizations and parish committees were noted by 13 groups. One of the groups clarified that women’s involvement in the finance committee is a recent development. Only three groups mentioned women’s role in “social committees,” while five groups talked about women’s role in social justice areas. Three groups mentioned women as theologians/scripture scholars and one as “psychologist for tribunal.”

Finally, it is worth noticing that “cooking,” “babysitting,” “art work,” and “journalism” were mentioned each by one different group as describing women’s ministry.

Women’s ministry was described as follows: “more personal, available to people, empower, pray together, share insights, trust, listen, refrain from judging, try to live our faith, homey, earthy, gentle, compassionate, person-oriented, serving others.” One group seemed to synthesize all this when it described women’s ministry as “nurturing, supporting, praying.” Several groups talked about women as “doing all the work — men get all the power and credit,” and women doing the “behind-the-scene work, the dirty work.” A considerable number of the groups talked about the limitations in women’s ministry due to lack of equal opportunity, of being stereotyped, of having no decision-making power. Their ministry is seen as inferior, non-official and privatized. A group affirmed that women’s ministry “is not necessarily different from a renewed men’s ministry.”

To the question, “Is women’s ministry today limited by not being ordained?” approximately 284 persons in 35 groups answered “yes” while approximately 29 persons in 34 groups answered “no.” The numbers were not always given definitively; answers like “about half” were not uncommon. Ten groups did not answer this question at all. Three groups gave more than numbers. Their answers follow:

a. A lot of yes—no official recognition, lack of power, no official recourse, no sacramentalization, A bit of no —some areas of ministry more open to non-ordained because as such not subject to some Canon restrictions and resulting Boss/Worker relationship.

b. We feel we have no authority or will in decision-making; we seem stuck with the traditional role of service: CCD teacher, setting up tea and receptions, office work.

c. Yes in remote places where they serve with no or few priests available to administer sacraments.

To the rest of the sub-questions the groups gave pretty much the answers already cited. The only different comments were the following concerning women’s ministry:

“Did your group perceive a difference between men and women’s style and understanding of ministry?”

Only 20 groups answered this question. Again the numbers are not exact since non-definitive numbers were given. One hundred twenty-five persons answered “yes;” 32 persons answered “no.” One group simply reported: “one-half yes; one-half no.”

When asked what differences were most often mentioned, only 20 groups answered. One group mentioned that “it depends on the person, not the sex of the person.” Another group noted that the question was impossible to answer “without generalization: not all men have the same style of ministry nor do all women.” A third group said that “roles don’t need further stereotyping. Structure limits men’s styles also.” A fourth group saw the style differences having to do with individuals or cultural conditioning rather than with the person’s sex, while a fifth group referred to differences depending on “historical conditioning rather than intrinsic qualities.”

The last question asking for further thoughts brought a wide variety of answers. Some groups praised the process, others warned women, others talked about women’s frustration at present.

A few remarks concerning priesthood and ministry in themselves came out here. There was talk of new styles of ministry, of ministry as sharing Christ’s presence. The basic meaning of ordination was questioned — should catechists be ordained? Is baptism enough “ordination?” “I’m both mother and father to my kids. If that isn’t ministry, what is?”

This question in general drew negative comments and/or warnings concerning women’s ministry. Because of their importance they follow being listed as given:

During their second meeting, the participating groups were asked to reflect on the characteristics of a renewed Church and its priorities. In general, they cited such hallmarks as openness, involvement, social justice, small-community basis, and some shifts in theological emphasis.

Many groups shared the desire for the basis of the renewed Church to be small communities, “where Christians know each other by name,” “more concerned with each other rather than dogma and creeds.” These groups would “share, cry, help, study, pray, and serve together, and call forth leaders to serve with Jesus-like compassion . . .” The community might also call forth its own leaders and help them prepare for ordination. One group seemed to think that an emphasis on small communities would help the Church shift from law-centeredness to people-awareness. Another group, however, cautioned that if the Church focuses solely on individual communities “we will be back to Congregationalism.”

Those surveyed expressed a real concern that the renewed Church involve a larger percentage of its members than does the present Church. One group put it this way: “The Church would be made of non-observers — all would be participants.” “Responsibility” was a key word: “The new Church will be responsible — no observers or product-buyers.” Others saw a need to take the catechumenate seriously, perhaps with the intention that a longer and more rigorous initiation process would screen out those who desire a nominal membership. Homily groups were suggested as a means of increased involvement.

A third characteristic of the renewed Church would be a greater openness than we have had in the past — both a willingness of members to accept each others’ charisms and a greater attempt by the members to reach out to the unchurched and those of other faiths. The Church could extend itself to those “outside” by focusing more on ecumenism (“God is not Roman Catholic!”) and by reaching out “to others outside of the geographical parish,” to “the larger community (hospital, troubled kids, elderly, unemployed),” and to “the neglected (singles of thirty and over, divorced and remarried).” “Outreach” was a descriptive word that occurred frequently. Openness within the Church would manifest itself in “greater tolerance and compassionate acceptance of individuals,” so that we are “a stew, not a melting-pot.”

Respondents were asked to describe the ministering community, and a large number of their replies emphasized a need for a broadening or “opening” of the definition of ministry. Openness within the Church should include a recognition and utilization of all members’ gifts, regardless of sex, race, or lifestyle (e.g. celibate, single, married). Ministry would be done by all the members to each other and the larger community, not just by the ordained clergy. This idea was exemplified in the comment, “No one person has a corner on the gifts of the Holy Spirit.” This recognition might include a special commissioning ceremony of non-clerical ministers, because “anything worth calling ministry is worth having commissioned by the people of God.”

Terms used to describe the ministering community are: support, enabling, serving, prayerful, prophetic, model as in Acts of the Apostles, vulnerability, non-competitive, hope-filled, sense of tradition, concerned about self-education, fullness of everything human, faith involvement, inspiring, agape, interaction, giftedness, stewardship, we in relationship to infinity, new language.

Ordination within the ministering community was a popular topic for discussion, and many groups were critical of our present ordained clergy. One commented, “There should be equal rights for celebrating, absolving, and anointing.” One group wanted to do away with clerical garb; another commented that there are far too many alcoholic priests; a third mentioned “the gap between laity and clergy that could be filled by deacons.” A fourth group suggested that religious women should take a leading role in the movement towards women’s ordination. A fifth group said that the small community should “call forth the minister and have the right and privilege to discern when the minister is no longer able to serve.” One group, apparently from a Japanese worshipping community, lamented the lack of native Japanese clergy. Noting the levels among ordained males, the latter group raised the question of whether in Japan women clergy would add “just another rung to the bottom of the ladder.” “Ministry is service, not status,” expressed a view shared by many.

Some comments seemed to indicate that under the present Church structure the laity are overly-dependent and not enough involved in the decision making. One group wanted “more responsibility for our own actions, not just hierarchy.” Another said, “The laity should claim their birthright by baptism, and the Church leadership should support lay involvement.” “The Church should be democratized, so that not only the official ministers carry responsibilities and have official positions.” Along these same lines, one group suggested that the agenda of the next Council be open to all, and another wants bishops to be selected by and accountable to their constituents, not Rome. The word “non-hierarchical” occurred many times, although one or two groups still saw that type of structure as having value.

Concern for social justice will be an important focus in the renewed Church, respondents indicated. This would become manifest in more concern for poor people, and in interest in political choices, civil liberties, war, and hunger. The Church should become “a healer of the brokenness in the world.” Some comments seemed to indicate that the Church community should become more just itself so that it can more authentically promote justice: “The acts of the Church have to be in agreement with its proclamations,” “The Church should stop being run like a large rich corporation,” “There should be less superstructure (e.g. property, hierarchy, organization).” Solidarity with others would be an important accompaniment of the Church’s emphasis on social justice so that we think “not of the Church vs. the world but rather we (the Church) are the world.” The Church should be “frugal and simple.” Finally, “what is needed is an outbreak of love which would tear down our economic structures.”

Several groups attempted to describe the theological and spiritual hallmarks of the renewed Church. They see the Church community as led by the Spirit, prayer-centered, made up of renewed members who “speak and witness without shame.” Prayer leadership and spiritual direction would be important, and people would be encouraged to study and reverence the Bible. There would be a focus on who Jesus is today, not who he was. “The ‘mysteriousness’ of the sacraments and rituals should be eradicated.”

In conclusion, the responses about renewed Church and ministry show a concern with the deep issues of faith, prayer-fulness, and social action and a desire for changes which will help the faithful live their common belief more authentically. They reiterate once again one of the Second Vatican Council’s most important teaching, namely, that the Church is the people of God — all the community.

The last question in the process was intended to make the participants reflect on the possibilities of renewing the priestly ministry. The question was stated thus: “If you could participate in creating a new priestly ministry, what would it look like?”

Of the people participating in the process, 192 persons believe that there are presently non-ordained ministries that would benefit from ordination while 44 believe the contrary. Twenty groups did not answer this question. Three groups objected to the distinction of non-ordained/ordained and all the persons in one group believed that ordination would benefit some of the presently non-ordained ministries, “as long as elitism does not come with ordination.”

The ministries mentioned as those that would benefit from ordination were varied and seemed to exclude no significant area usually considered today as pertaining to ministry.

Several groups mentioned the importance of the Community in determining ministries to be ordained and the importance of leadership in ministry.

Repeatedly was the ministry to the sick and the elderly pointed out.

Some spoke of ministries that are, perhaps, related to the above such as: clinical pastoral work; caring and praying ministries; pastoral care; and ministry of care.

“Chaplaincy work” as such without specifying what kind was mentioned once. Besides hospital chaplaincy which some groups had in mind according to what was indicated above, “prison ministry” was identified twice and “campus ministry” seven times.

Considered by several groups as benefiting from ordination were: spiritual direction; counseling; religious education (teachers and/or coordinators); those in retreat work; and youth ministers.

Pastoral work in general was brought up repeatedly in varying terms while those working in parishes were pointed out by only three groups.

Ministries already ordained which were referred to were anointing and reconciliation. Four groups talked about ordaining “those dealing with reconciliation” and one group referred to “those involved in communal and private Penance celebration.” They all seemed to refer to “reconciliation” outside the present official sacrament framework but this was not always spelled out clearly. “Mass celebration” was mentioned once and “Deacons” were twice referred to. Three groups talked about “those dealing with the Eucharistic celebration” and one mentioned “Eucharistic ministry in missionary territory.”

Two groups mentioned ordaining “women,” two talked about “religious communities” and one brought up “married priests,” One group included “all (ministries) which the non-ordained are presently doing.”

Several groups used this question to discuss related issues or cautioning:

Concerning the process the groups would like to see those engaged in ministry go through to prepare themselves for the priestly ministry, a number of participants asked for the “isolation” of the present structure to be done away with. The education process is to be “multi-facetical,” according to one group; “well-rounded” according to another.

What kind of education? “More practical training,” with “emphasis on service,” “updated,” “experiential.” Two groups indicated that to make it experiential they should work with people while studying and administer sacraments while in training. A third group talked about education with a “world orientation;" a fourth one mentioned “practical ability to minister.”

When it came to what should be learned, the variety was great.

Theological and scriptural studies as well as counseling, leadership training and human relation skills were mentioned repeatedly. The emphasis was on studies that would make of priests well-rounded, knowledge-wise and person-wise, self and others.

The need for a preparation having to do with “prayer life” was mentioned several times. Several groups asked for “individualized education” or preparing for ministry to a specific group. Five groups talked about an internship; one asked for a ten-year internship with drop-out option, while a second one simply asked for a “longer period of training (7-13 years).” Six groups mentioned “continuing education.”

Participants saw a value to “simple living,” a “cross-cultural experience,” “studying in different dioceses” and “mixing and worshipping with other denominations.”

Only two groups mentioned something about keeping the present setting. One group of participants saw different things needed in training of women and in that of men:

The next two questions drew very similar answers.

The question was, “What terms or words did your group most often use to describe a new priestly ministry?” Several groups talked about “involved with people — people-oriented;” three talked about “optional celibacy;” six referred to leadership: “spiritual,” “enlightened,” “formal” and “potential.” Two mentioned “identification with the world,” one using the term “incarnated.”

“Human,” “human life” — occurred five times. One group talked about “religious humanitarianism” and another one equated humanism with “less legalistic.”

“Multi-ethnic” was used by one group and “multi-cultural” by another. Two groups mentioned the Apostles as examples to follow. The following terms were used by at least two groups: appreciative, concerned, diverse, enable everyone to minister, Eucharistic, flexible, inspirational, integrated/whole, mature, relaxed, self-aware, sharing — sharing Who Christ is, understanding.

There were references to “prayerfulness,” “loving,” “lovable/ ”open," “compassionate,” “caring,” and “servant.”

As people reflected on what would be personal qualities they would want to see in those involved in the new priestly ministry, the one most often referred to was “listening.” Prayerfulness, openness to suggestion and ideas, and loving, were again mentioned. New terms found were “simplicity,” and “compassionate.”

A few groups talked about having the ability to challenge, being an enabler, a leader, sensitive, warm, and gentle. They want priests with a desire for growth, a sense of humor, who can live in peace, be understanding and be a person with vision.

Two groups dealt with the authority question. One mentioned “less authority-oriented,” and the second one talked about “ability to delegate authority.” Two other groups talked about the married clergy issue: “No need for celibacy;” “marriage should be welcomed.”

Four of the groups had something to say regarding self-acceptance. The whole idea of relating in a more or less deep fashion with others was mentioned five times.

The greatest agreement among the groups came in the question regarding the life-style of a renewed priestly ministry. Fourteen talked about married clergy and/or optional celibacy. Ten groups called for simplicity in life-style and at least six groups directly called for a life of poverty. Three groups asked for the abolishment of rectories and 12 groups want priests living in community or relating to the community more directly than at present. As many groups asked for a more flexible life-style.

When asked about which elements of the present priesthood they would like to see kept in a renewed priestly ministry, three areas stood out significantly: sacramental structure, leadership role and special training. Some confusion between elements to be kept and elements they would wish to see are present in the reports of several groups.

Five different groups had something to say about keeping the present sense of service; one group mentioned simply “involvement,” while two other groups specified “involvement with ecumenism,” “involvement with kids.” “Commitment” came up three times, while “caring” attitude was referred to twice. Celibacy “as a voluntarily accepted charism,” or as an “option” was mentioned by two groups.

Though undoubtedly the groups are calling for significant change, a small number of groups would like to keep such elements as religious garb, a “streamline hierarchical structure,” and paid ministry. As one group put it, “keep many of the elements of priests today but not concentrated in one person.”

A few times the idea of ministry being called by the community, from the community and ordained by the community was expressed. One group saw the Church of the future as “small communities which relate and wish to celebrate Jesus among them, regardless of their sex.”

Appendix A - Conference Task Force

DOLORES BROOKS, OP holds an M. Div. from the Weston School of Theology and is a pastoral minister in a Chicago parish.

ROSE COLLEY, SL coordinates the Office of Organizational Development of the Sisters of Loretto, Denver, and specializes in communications processes for small and large groups.

MAUREEN DWYER holds an M. Div. from Union Theological Seminary. She is currently assistant director of the Social Action Office, Diocese of Brooklyn.

ADA MARIA ISASI-DIAZ serves the Women’s Ordination Conference as Regional Coordinator. She worked as parish minister in the Diocese of Rochester, New York, and holds an M.A. in Social and Institutional Medieval History.

ROSEMARY KUTZ holds an M.A. in Religion from the University of Kansas and works as PR director for Topeka (Kansas) YWCA and national coordinator for Campus Ministry Women.

ROSALIE MUSCHAL-REINHARDT, Rochester, is coordinator of the national office for the Women’s Ordination Conference. She completed her M. Div. degree at Jesuit School of Theology, Chicago.

DOLLY POMERLEAU, coordinator of the Conference, is also co-director of the Quixote Center in Washington, D.C. An award-winning journalist, she holds an M.A. in Women’s Studies from George Washington University.

VIRGINIA POWER, Buffalo, has been active in many aspects of the women’s movement and is a homemaker currently pursuing a degree in Cultural Studies/Women’s Studies at Empire State College.

DONNA QUINN, OP is executive director of Chicago Catholic Women. She helped organize the first Ordination Conference in 1975 and has been on the WOC Core Commission since then.

ILMA ROSSKOPF holds an M.A. in Latin American Studies and worked in Latin America for several years. She is now employed as an economist by the U.S. Department of Labor.

SUE SECKER, OP is an M. Div. student at Jesuit School of Theology, Chicago. She was formerly coordinator of a three-parish Pastoral Team in the diocese of Helena, Montana.

SYLVIA SEDILLO, SL is a feminist active in Hispanic and women’s issues in the Southwest. She is currently director of Casa San Jose, a diocesan maternity shelter in Grants, New Mexico.

ELAINE SONOSKY, liturgical planner for the Conference, has studied liturgy at the University of Notre Dame, Georgetown University and Catholic University. She is a liturgical consultant with Family Learning Teams, Inc.

ELIZABETH THOMAN, CHM, coordinator of press and media coverage, is executive director of the National Sisters Communications Service in Los Angeles.

LINDSAY THOMPSON is chief planning officer in the Maryland State Health Planning and Development Agency.

LUKE TOBIN, SL, a past president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), served eight years on the national staff of Church Women United. She was one of the few women observers at Vatican II.

MARJORIE TUITE, OP is a member of the ministerial team at Jesuit School of Theology, Chicago.

BARBARA ZANOTTI, Boston coordinator of the Mobilization for Survival, has experience in all areas of parish ministry and religious education.

WOC Advisory Board

William Callahan, SJ - Mt. Rainier, MD
Francine Cardman - Washington, DC
Barbara Doherty, SP - Park Ridge, IL
Wayne Fehr, SJ - Chicago, IL
Joseph Fichter, SJ - New Orleans, LA
Jack Finnegan - Weston, MA
Judith Healey - Minneapolis, MN
Robert Hovda - Chicago, IL
Roberto Pena - San Antonio, TX
Mary Louise Putrow, OP - Adrian, Ml
Rosemary Radford Ruether - Evanston, IL
Elisabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza - South Bend, IN
Mary Luke Tobin, SL - Denver, CO
Helen Wright, SND - Washington, DC
 -

Appendix B - WOC Core Commission and Advisory Board 1979-80

WOC Core Commission

Teresita Basso, PB - VM Santa Ana, CA
Betty Carroll, RSM - Pittsburgh, PA
Kathleen Keating, SSJ - Holyoke, MA
Donna Kelly Rego - Cleveland, OH
Rosemary Kutz - Topeka, KS
Jacqueline Marie Merz, SSND - Irving, TX
Margaret M. Mohler - Endicott City, MD
Jamie Phelps, OP - Chicago, IL
Dolly Pomerleau - Mt. Rainier, MD
Kathryn Power - Plymouth, MN
Marilyn Steffel - Calumet City, IL
Catherine Stewart Roche - Albuquerque, NM
Carroll Stuhlmueller, CP - Chicago, IL
Marjorie Tuite, OP - Chicago, IL
Barbara Zanotti - Cambridge, MA


For related online Libraries see:  

The ORDINATION OF WOMEN in the Catholic Church

Catherine of Siena VIRTUAL COLLEGE
THE BODY IS SACRED MYSTERY AND BEYOND

We hope that you have found this document helpful. It costs our small charity on average £10 / $20 / Euro15 to make such a document freely available to you. This is because we have to identify the best scholarship available, retrieve texts, obtain permissions, scan, edit, link and convert documents to html format and run a small office base to make this all possible. We can do this only because we are run almost entirely by volunteers. Please help us build our online library of resources so that more people can access the debate and make up their own minds about women priests. Having benefited from the online library, any donation, small or large, that you can make to support our work would be gratefully appreciated. Click here to learn how to make a donation now.

Find links to related websites in your own country! Make this site one of your favourites Recommend this website to a friend Let us have your ideas and suggestions Create a button and link to our site from your webpage Women's Ongoing Internet Consultation 'Friends' give us a regular contribution We need your financial support!

Please, credit this document
as published by www.ministryforwomen.org!