As my Jesuit colleague once told me, when he was in Catholic school they used to answer the question of how many sacraments there were with "seven for boys, six for girls," since holy orders were out. How long the church can refuse to allow women's ordination will be interesting to see, especially since we are running out of priests as it is. I find these women incredibly brave.

"Like many of the other women being ordained today, Houk is not celibate. She has been married for 30 years and has six children and five grandchildren. One of today's ordinands is divorced."

It seems there is to be no regulation on the priesthood whatsoever for these women, perhaps that's their point, and perhaps they should look into Unitarianism.

The Roman Catholice priesthood is not simply an honorific title, bestowed on the business manager of a church, but a deep and all consuming commitment to the Lord above all else. Do priests fail in this commitment, of course, they too are human, but can one honestly enter into such an office without full acknowledgement of its weight?

And this is where we find these women and this movement. For whose glory do they seek this office? For God's or their own? If their desire is to simply serve their God, and their God's Church, why are the roles offered to perform this service inadequate for them?

Is evidence, no matter how solid or weak, of previous ordinations in times of crisis, or in other cultural context, proof that the church must throw open its doors? Again the answer is no. What separates Catholicism from the other branches of Christianity is that it is not a popular movement. It is, its adherents hold, a divinely ordered organization, lead by God through God's emissary the Pope. If you do not hold this notion, than you are not a Roman Catholic.

The Church receives equal ardent criticism from both its conservative and liberal critics. Among Conservatives who feel that the Pope was wrong on the liberalization of doctrine after Vatican II, splinter churches have been created where Latin Rites alone are spoken and where Jesus’ sacrifice was for "you and for most" as opposed to "You and for all" as in true Roman Catholic Churches. Those who serve at these anachronistic masses are no more Roman Catholic Priests than these Women, or the Archbishop of Canterbury. If you are not in communion with Rome, you are not a Roman Catholic.

Now, before I am called a bigoted sexist, let me just say, I too feel that women should be ordained in the Roman Catholic Church. I see no scriptural or spiritual reason to withhold this office from women, however I am a Roman Catholic, and so my feelings are unimportant with regard to my Church's teachings.

When a Roman Catholic is faced with doctrine or dogma that they disagree with, a Roman Catholic does not break with their communion. Instead, what they should do is meditate on the question. They try to understand why their God, who is all loving, and all forgiving, might hold his Church to a tenet that is seen as unloving by the world. What I have come to understand as a Roman Catholic, is that the Church's obligations go beyond one member, or even one vocal powerful group of members. The Church, and the Pope must always ask not only, "is this right?" but also "is this what the world is ready for?". The Church is not the Church of America, or France, or Mexico. It is the Church of the whole world. If a teaching is to be changed, the Church must ask how that teaching will be seen in places that are as yet unready for this revelation. When the Church "Modernized" many rejected these teachings, and broke communion. But most embraced the change, as they had come to be ready to accept that all men could know salvation without it lessening their own.

With the ordination of women, as it is with all "progressive" issues the church is criticized for, the story is only spoken of in terms of the developed world. Women lead countries, women lead corporations, and of course families, why should they not also be priests? Surely in countries where this is the case, surely women priests would be accepted. But what of the souls of those in countries where these tenets are not yet embraced? What if the presence of women priests would prevent these people from coming to the Church? What then? It may seem like an over cautious argument, but if the whole world is not yet ready for this revelation, how else can the church proceed? Should the Church be as America and tell the world it is wrong and force its views upon others? Or through patient example show that all are equal in the eyes of God.

For those who say that the Church makes second class citizens of their women I ask this. Is a female saint less than a male? That is not the Church's teaching. In fact the opposite is true, that any can come to know the Lord as the saints do. Mother Theresa was not lesser in the eyes of God, or the eyes of her Church, because she was a woman. Her power in the church and the work she did in its service is without question proof that she was equal. And in her example amongst the poor of the world, they are brought closer to the understanding that no woman is lesser than a man in any function.

Those who move fast towards a truth they see will always see the Church as behind the times, just as those who cling to outdated doctrines of the past will always see the Church as without principle. In truth, the Church must stand between the two. Offering an anchor to those who would fly forward into self aggrandizement and as a leader into the light for those fearful of change.

I do not expect anyone who is not in communion with the church to be swayed by these arguments, but then why would you think the church would be swayed by yours?