A greater presence of women in decision-making roles in the church

Erren Music

VATICAN CITY -- A greater presence of women in decision-making roles in the church might have helped remove the "veil of masculine secrecy" that covered priestly sex abuse cases, a front-page commentary in the Vatican newspaper said.

Abuse cases show need for greater women's role

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/abuse-cases-show-need-greater-womens-role

This is a very interesting issue. I would like to ask female catholics here how you accept the sexist nature of the church. Doe's the fact that is doesn't value you enough to say mass or officiate in any meaniful way anger you. If so how do you support it and reconcile that in yourself. How do you feel about protestantism.

hinault

It came home to me in 2002.

Myself and my wife got married in Rome.
When you marry in Rome, you're invited to attend the weekly audience of His Holiness, the Pope.

Sitting there on the steps of St.Peters looking at the parade of cardinals and bishops, there was no a female in sight.
Meeting the Pope, he was attended by two bishops who introduced us to the Pope.
Again not a sign of a female presence.

I watched the funeral of Pope John Paul II : again there was no female participation in the funeral Mass.



The Roman Catholic Church venerates the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary.
Yet, the Church does not see fit to allow women to enter Holy Orders in the full expression of that title.
Women are not allowed to say Mass, hear confession, administer the sacraments.

The Roman Catholic Church has adopted the same attitude to women as the Jewish religion from which the Church derived.

Crazy situation, in my view.

Not to mention the treatment of women in the secular world.
Until recently, women had to be "churched" after giving birth!
Madness, in my view.

Stephentlig

hinault wrote: »

It came home to me in 2002.

Myself and my wife got married in Rome.
When you marry in Rome, you're invited to attend the weekly audience of His Holiness, the Pope.

Sitting there on the steps of St.Peters looking at the parade of cardinals and bishops, there was no a female in sight.
Meeting the Pope, he was attended by two bishops who introduced us to the Pope.
Again not a sign of a female presence.

I watched the funeral of Pope John Paul II : again there was no female participation in the funeral Mass.



The Roman Catholic Church venerates the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary.
Yet, the Church does not see fit to allow women to enter Holy Orders in the full expression of that title.
Women are not allowed to say Mass, hear confession, administer the sacraments.

The Roman Catholic Church has adopted the same attitude to women as the Jewish religion from which the Church derived.

Crazy situation, in my view.

Not to mention the treatment of women in the secular world.
Until recently, women had to be "churched" after giving birth!
Madness, in my view.

Hi Hinault, I disagree, first of all it is not in the churches power to ordain women and it never will, but this does not mean that it is sexist towards women at Papal audiences the crowds contain thousands of nuns, who become brides of Christ through their vows.

Both men and women in the church are equal, however its their roles within the structure of the Church that are quite different.

Finally I dont know what you mean when you say that women had to be ''churched'' after giving birth? never heard of that expression before.

Pax Christi
Stephen

PDN

Stephentlig wrote: »

Finally I dont know what you mean when you say that women had to be ''churched'' after giving birth? never heard of that expression before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churching_of_women

hinault

PDN wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churching_of_women

This practice was widespread in this country up until at least the 1980's.

The traditional view was that women were deemed to be "unclean" when in a pregnant state.

In order to gain re-admittance to the physical church building, a woman had to be "churched" (made clean) before being allowed enter the chapel.

Crazy stuff in my opinion.
Essentially an overhang from the Judeo-Christian roots.

hinault

Stephentlig wrote: »

Hi Hinault, I disagree, first of all it is not in the churches power to ordain women and it never will, but this does not mean that it is sexist towards women at Papal audiences the crowds contain thousands of nuns, who become brides of Christ through their vows.

Both men and women in the church are equal, however its their roles within the structure of the Church that are quite different.

Finally I dont know what you mean when you say that women had to be ''churched'' after giving birth? never heard of that expression before.

Pax Christi
Stephen

With respect, I disagree.

Yes, I know that Christ appointed only men as His Apostles :
However, Christ was adhering to the Jewish tradition, presumably?
The Jewish tradition disbarred women from any proactive role in their religion.

To my mind, God created man and woman equal.
If equality is at the root of creation, women should be allowed to participate in the distribution of the sacraments, say Mass etc.

I know that a lot of traditionalists will disagree with the views that I have expressed here - but there you go.

Stephentlig

PDN wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churching_of_women

man why do people quote sicki wiki all the time? dont you know that at trinity college its prob the worst thing a student can do when writing a paper? as its the most unreliable source going.

now...*drum roll* ladies a gentlemen, I provide to you a more reliable and trustworthy source.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03761a.htm


from the above I cannot see what is wrong with this practice? I think its a beautiful practice and one that women would love to even be given the knowledge of so they could practice it again. its the first time I've ever heard of it.

very nice indeed and I cant see why people would view such a practice as being sexist towards women.

God bless
Stephen

hinault

Stephentlig wrote: »

man why do people quote sicki wiki all the time? dont you know that at trinity college its prob the worst thing a student can do when writing a paper? as its the most unreliable source going.

now...*drum roll* ladies a gentlemen, I provide to you a more reliable and trustworthy source.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03761a.htm


from the above I cannot see what is wrong with this practice? I think its a beautiful practice and one that women would love to even be given the knowledge of so they could practice it again. its the first time I've ever heard of it.

very nice indeed and I cant see why people would view such a practice as being sexist towards women.

God bless
Stephen

Stephen : if a woman was not "churched", she could be denied access to the church and was refused access to the sacraments, by some over zealous clergy.

My mother told me this (and she is a pious RC).

I agree that the blessing itself, is a nice thing to receive.
However, it was abused in many cases and it was used to exercise power and to deny the right of women to access the sacraments.

Stephentlig

hinault wrote: »

With respect, I disagree.

Yes, I know that Christ appointed only men as His Apostles :
However, Christ was adhering to the Jewish tradition, presumably?
The Jewish tradition disbarred women from any proactive role in their religion.

To my mind, God created man and woman equal.
If equality is at the root of creation, women should be allowed to participate in the distribution of the sacraments, say Mass etc.

I know that a lot of traditionalists will disagree with the views that I have expressed here - but there you go.

Hinault there is no such thing as a trad catholic or a post vat II catholic, there is only 'Catholic' your either a Catholic or your not. I invite you to reconsider your thoughts towards the Doctrine of Holy orders and understand that since its not in the churches power to ordain women, your belief that it should is not an inpsired thought that comes from Jesus Christ.

women been given one of the greatest gifts from Christ and thats to become his bride. we are equal in person, but our roles within the church are quite different.

Please consider the following scriptural passages taken from John Salzas website. www.scripturecatholic.com

Gen. 3:15; Luke 1:26-55; John 19:26; Rev. 12:1- Mary is God's greatest creation, was the closest person to Jesus, and yet Jesus did not choose her to become a priest. God chose only men to be priests to reflect the complimentarity of the sexes. Just as the man (the royal priest) gives natural life to the woman in the marital covenant, the ministerial priest gives supernatural life in the New Covenant sacraments.

Judges 17:10; 18:19 – fatherhood and priesthood are synonymous terms. Micah says, “Stay with me, and be to me a father and a priest.” Fathers/priests give life, and mothers receive and nurture life. This reflects God our Father who gives the life of grace through the Priesthood of His Divine Son, and Mother Church who receives the life of grace and nourishes her children. In summary, women cannot be priests because women cannot be fathers.

Mark 16:9; Luke 7: 37-50; John 8:3-11 - Jesus allowed women to uniquely join in His mission, exalting them above cultural norms. His decision not to ordain women had nothing to do with culture. The Gospel writers are also clear that women participated in Jesus' ministry and, unlike men, never betrayed Jesus. Women have always been held with the highest regard in the Church (e.g., the Church's greatest saint and model of faith is a woman; the Church's constant teaching on the dignity of motherhood; the Church's understanding of humanity as being the Bride united to Christ, etc.).

Mark 14:17,20; Luke 22:14 - the language "the twelve" and "apostles" shows Jesus commissioned the Eucharistic priesthood by giving holy orders only to men.

Gen. 14:10; Heb. 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:15,17 - Jesus, the Son of God, is both priest and King after the priest-king Melchizedek. Jesus' priesthood embodies both Kingship and Sonship.

Gen. 22:9-13 - as foreshadowed, God chose our redemption to be secured by the sacrificial love that the Son gives to the Father.

Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19 - because the priest acts in persona Christi in the offering to the Father, the priest cannot be a woman.

Mark 3:13 - Jesus selected the apostles "as He desired," according to His will, and not according to the demands of His culture. Because Jesus acted according to His will which was perfectly united to that of the Father, one cannot criticize Jesus' selection of men to be His priests without criticizing God.

John 20:22 - Jesus only breathed on the male apostles, the first bishops, giving them the authority to forgive and retain sins. In fact, the male priesthood of Christianity was a distinction from the priestesses of paganism that existed during these times. A female priesthood would be a reversion to non-Christian practices. The sacred tradition of a male priesthood has existed uncompromised in the Church for 2,000 years.

1 Cor. 14:34-35 - Paul says a woman is not permitted to preach the word of God in the Church. It has always been the tradition of the Church for the priest or deacon alone (an ordained male) to read and preach the Gospel.

1 Tim. 2:12 - Paul also says that a woman is not permitted to hold teaching authority in the Church. Can you imagine how much Mary, the Mother of God, would have been able to teach Christians about Jesus her Son in the Church? Yet, she was not permitted to hold such teaching authority in the Church.

Rom. 16:1-2 - while many Protestants point to this verse denounce the Church's tradition of a male priesthood, deaconesses, like Phoebe, were helpers to the priests (for example, preparing women for naked baptism so as to prevent scandal). But these helpers were never ordained.

Luke 2:36-37 - prophetesses, like Anna, were women who consecrated themselves to religious life, but were not ordained.
Isaiah 3:12 – Isaiah complains that the priests of ancient Israel were having their authority usurped by women, and this was at the height of Israel’s covenant apostasy.

Stephentlig

hinault wrote: »

Stephen : if a woman was not "churched", she could be denied access to the church and was refused access to the sacraments, by some over zealous clergy.

My mother told me this (and she is a pious RC).

I agree that the blessing itself, is a nice thing to receive.
However, it was abused in many cases and it was used to exercise power and to deny the right of women to access the sacraments.

Hinault there is no such thing as over zealous people but there is such thing as disobedience, so you'll have to quote me an instance of where this happened to make it more believable. and whatever ya do do NOT LOL I repeat DO NOT quote me from sicki wiki. *hug*

hinault

Stephentlig wrote: »

Hinault there is no such thing as over zealous people but there is such thing as disobedience, so you'll have to quote me an instance of where this happened to make it more believable. and whatever ya do do NOT LOL I repeat DO NOT quote me from sicki wiki. *hug*

This did happen - and it happened frequently in the 1960/70's.
Ask your mother/aunts etc.

My mother was instructed that she could not attend church unless she had been churched first after giving birth to me and subsequently my brother.

Stephentlig

hinault wrote: »

This did happen - and it happened frequently in the 1960/70's.
Ask your mother/aunts etc.

My mother was instructed that she could not attend church unless she had been churched first after giving birth to me and subsequently my brother.

interesting Hinault, I will certainly look into it a little more, even if the above is so, and I do not doubt that your story is legit, I beleive we can have people like that within the church.

however legit your Mothers story is, Its possible the priests who thought she had to do this probably had their own ideas about being churched and didnt mean to be malicious in anyway and probably thought they were doing the right thing, however if they were doing it out of malice then this is not right and they shouldnt of been doing that and were not being obedient to Holy Mother church. It's important we pray for priests.

I'll check up with my mother and father to see what their thoughts are upon it and shall do a little research.

Pax Christi
Stephen

hinault

Stephentlig wrote: »

interesting Hinault, I will certainly look into it a little more, even if the above is so, and I do not doubt that your story is legit, I beleive we can have people like that within the church.

however legit your Mothers story is, Its possible the priests who thought she had to do this probably had their own ideas about being churched and didnt mean to be malicious in anyway and probably thought they were doing the right thing, however if they were doing it out of malice then this is not right and they shouldnt of been doing that and were not being obedient to Holy Mother church. It's important we pray for priests.

I'll check up with my mother and father to see what their thoughts are upon it and shall do a little research.

Pax Christi
Stephen

What happened to my mother, did actually happen.

As my mother now says "back then we just obeyed, but we had to obey regardless"

It didn't affect her view of the Church and she is practising RC and a daily communicant.

But those episodes did re-enforce her view about the institutional church view of women.

Stephentlig

hinault wrote: »

What happened to my mother, did actually happen.

As my mother now says "back then we just obeyed, but we had to obey regardless"

It didn't affect her view of the Church and she is practising RC and a daily communicant.

But those episodes did re-enforce her view about the institutional church view of women.

Holy obedience is important, but when a priest asks you to do something contrary to the truth and compels you to do it, then obedience to God must shown before man ( Acts:5:29) Our Lady of Fatima warned that there were bad priests within the Church but of course I dont think that was paid any heed, it is now though :rolleyes: too late if you ask me. but the important thing is that all that has been dealt with.

well your Mother can now relax in the knowledge that Mother Church loves women, for most of the visionaries given to us down through the centuries such as St.Therese and St.Faustina were visited by Jesus and I suggest you read their books and conversations with Christ. a lot of visionaries became doctors of the church too, such as St.Catherine of Siena.

Pax Christi
Stephen

The Mad Hatter

Stephentlig wrote: »

man why do people quote sicki wiki all the time? dont you know that at trinity college its prob the worst thing a student can do when writing a paper? as its the most unreliable source going.

It's been shown to be as accurate as Britannica in most instances and more accurate in some. No student should use it as a source in a research paper, as the articles change so frequently (and can be prone to error), but as a first-port-of-call it's invaluable.

"The most unreliable source going?" Certainly not.

Stephentlig

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It's been shown to be as accurate as Britannica in most instances and more accurate in some. No student should use it as a source in a research paper, as the articles change so frequently (and can be prone to error), but as a first-port-of-call it's invaluable.

"The most unreliable source going?" Certainly not.

anyone can go on sicki wiki and edit it ya mad hatter ya :P which does make it unreliable.

The Mad Hatter

Stephentlig wrote: »

anyone can go on sicki wiki and edit it ya mad hatter ya :P which does make it unreliable.

I'm aware that anyone can edit it, but the vast majority of people do so honestly, as that study shows. And even when they edit it dishonestly, it tends to be reverted to fact in almost no time afterwards.

I like Wikipedia. It's one of those places that shows that humanity is actually, for the most part, decent.

iUseVi

Stephentlig wrote: »

anyone can go on sicki wiki and edit it ya mad hatter ya :P which does make it unreliable.

If you've ever edited it yourself you will know that bad edits last at most minutes usually. It really is quite good these days.

Manach

Two points
1 - Wikipedia: We were warmed never to quote this in an college assignment. Not the done thing etc.

2 - Mother Angelica of EWTN has not done too bad in such a Patriarchal system.

krudler

Stephentlig wrote: »

anyone can go on sicki wiki and edit it ya mad hatter ya :P which does make it unreliable.

True, but without citation the articles dont last long, I dont know why the ignorant keep saying wikipedia is unreliable, its one of the most valauable tools on the internet. Its also laughable that a student cant quote it but can quote any other unfounded website, the vasy, vast majority of stuff on wiki is accurate

panda100

Stephentlig wrote: »

Both men and women in the church are equal, however its their roles within the structure of the Church that are quite different.

This is one statement continually trotted out that I hated when I was a Catholic. This insistence that women's alloted role in the church is not inferior to men's role- but different. You cannot declare people systematcally different without implicitly declaring them inferior.

It is very difficult to be convinced of women's equal role when the roles of real influence and power are all alloted to men. Women are consigned to the home,family,domestic allowing men to take public roles giving them much more opportunity to make things happen.

Imagine the uproar If the vatican prevented a black man from coming a priest!Yet Jesus wasn't black,he was a middle Eastern Jew/ Whats the differnce bewteen a black or any non-Judean man and a women from becoming a priest/bishop/pope?

Pink Boots

This is one statement continually trotted out that I hated when I was a Catholic. This insistence that women's alloted role in the church is not inferior to men's role- but different. You cannot declare people systematcally different without implicitly declaring them inferior.

Why is difference implicitly inferior? Are you suggesting we all become uniformly the same? imho the world would be a dead dull dreary place without difference.

It is very difficult to be convinced of women's equal role when the roles of real influence and power are all alloted to men. Women are consigned to the home,family,domestic allowing men to take public roles giving them much more opportunity to make things happen.

Women are not consigned in the world to the domestic sphere or the corporate or the public for that matter. Women have free will and the ability to create their own destiny.

Imagine the uproar If the vatican prevented a black man from coming a priest!Yet Jesus wasn't black,he was a middle Eastern Jew/ Whats the differnce bewteen a black or any non-Judean man and a women from becoming a priest/bishop/pope?

First of all, the Vatican has never prevented a man from being a priest because he of the color of his skin, be it black, white, yellow, or red. Therefore I fail to see the point of your post.
Second, for the sake of clarity: there is a huge difference between a man and a woman. Her skin color doesn't have anything to do with why she may not become a priest. Jesus was a man. Middle eastern, yes. There are many middle eastern priests in the Catholic Church. However, you will find no women priests because Jesus was a man. Priests represent Jesus on Earth in one of the mysteries of the Church. And Jesus we know was a man.
Women may not become priests because they are women. Women have roles in the Church. But they are different from a mans, and yet they are not inferior. Biologically speaking women's role in procreation is different from a man's, but again no less inferior. I digress.
A black person is different from a white person, and yet they are not inferior. No way. No how.

Stephentlig

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I'm aware that anyone can edit it, but the vast majority of people do so honestly, as that study shows. And even when they edit it dishonestly, it tends to be reverted to fact in almost no time afterwards.

I like Wikipedia. It's one of those places that shows that humanity is actually, for the most part, decent.

well mad hatter you certainly have good faith I must admit :pac:

but I still have not changed my views upon sicki wiki

doctoremma

Stephentlig wrote: »

well mad hatter you certainly have good faith I must admit :pac:

but I still have not changed my views upon sicki wiki

A comparative study was performed by and published in Nature in 2005. This scientific approach found that on science subjects, Wiki was only slightly less accurate that Encyclopedia Britannica and, IIRC, these inaccuracies tended to relate to the discussion of conceptual issues, rather than factual errors.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

So not really a matter for "faith". But completely agree that it is inappropriate to use Wiki as a reference in academic writing (just as it would be to use Encyclopedia Britannica). I get sick of telling my students this. Use Wiki as your starting point when you don't have a clue about something.

Erren Music

Pink Boots wrote: »

Why is difference implicitly inferior? Are you suggesting we all become uniformly the same? imho the world would be a dead dull dreary place without difference.

Women are not consigned in the world to the domestic sphere or the corporate or the public for that matter. Women have free will and the ability to create their own destiny.

Why would they follow RCC then.

Do you seriously believe that women are treated with value by the church?


Any chance we can get back on track here please.

Ultravid

The Blessed Virgin Mary is the most highly honoured and exalted person of all humanity, after Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, of course. The Lord could have chosen female priests, but He did not. We must remember that the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven are not priests, but saints.

What is lost on most people is the spiritual realities and the nuptual theology of the Catholic religion. To have women priests would be the equivalent of spiritual lesbianism. The Church is the Bride of Christ (female). The priest, as an alter Christus, must be male. To have a female priest would therefore be spiritual lesbianism.

Nevermind anything else, but to have women priests (which the Church says it has no authority to ordain) would rip the Church apart. It would be like the Protestant Reformation x100. Therefore we must ask where is all this clamouring for women priests coming from? It is not holiness and piety, that is for sure.

Peter Kreeft has a piece on this matter, it is very convincing: check it out:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm

“The most egregious error of all is the demand to be priestesses for empowerment. I can think of no term that more perfectly proves the speaker’s utter incomprehension of what she says than that. . . . Priests are not power brokers or managers.”

panda100

I should state that I am no longer a Catholic and am an atheist,but hope my post is in spirit of the forum as it is a topic I have a genuine intrest in.

Pink Boots wrote: »

First of all, the Vatican has never prevented a man from being a priest because he of the color of his skin, be it black, white, yellow, or red. Therefore I fail to see the point of your post.
Second, for the sake of clarity: there is a huge difference between a man and a woman. Her skin color doesn't have anything to do with why she may not become a priest. Jesus was a man. Middle eastern, yes. There are many middle eastern priests in the Catholic Church. However, you will find no women priests because Jesus was a man. Priests represent Jesus on Earth in one of the mysteries of the Church. And Jesus we know was a man.
Women may not become priests because they are women. Women have roles in the Church. But they are different from a mans, and yet they are not inferior. Biologically speaking women's role in procreation is different from a man's, but again no less inferior. I digress.
A black person is different from a white person, and yet they are not inferior. No way. No how.

You say black people and white people are different,yet black men are allowed to become priests?
You say that women and men are different but women are not allowed to become priests? That to me seems wholly inconsistent.


I really don't think you understand much about Jesus Christ If you truly believe that being a man is the one salient variable when one is trying to imitate Christ.
Jesus chose his apostles only from Aramaic speakers,only from Judeans and only from Jews. Surely it was 'Gods plan' then only to have these types of people to imitate Christ on earth? So why are black and Irish men allowed to become priests when they were not represnted in the apostles?


I don't believe Jesus chose just men as his disciples as historical evidence makes it clear that he had extremly close female companions.
If he chose men to preach with, it wasnt because of some divine plan for the church,but because it was the path of least resistance at a time where women were still very much excluded from public life. There is little reason to think he intended the maleness of the apostles to be a binding precedent for the future.

I think Jesus was a revoloutionary of his time who did everything he could to stop the oppression of women and create equality between men and women. I think he would be disgusted at the churchs patriarchy which is absolutely and completely man made and self-serving. There is no indication that a male dominated church was in God's plan.

Ultravid wrote: »

The Blessed Virgin Mary is the most highly honoured and exalted person of all humanity, after Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, of course. The Lord could have chosen female priests, but He did not. We must remember that the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven are not priests, but saints.

The history of Mary's exultation is extremely intresting and is one that completly confirmed my lack of belief in the RC church, as her exultation is complty man made.
Her elevation does not come from Jesus, but decisions made centuries after his deaths by a long line of pope's,many of whom brought their papal power. How on earth could a man in the 1800 know enough about a peasant girl from Palenstine, of which there is little known or written about, about to declare her free from original sin?

As a role model for women,Mary set downright contradictory standards, represnting the apothesis of virginity,passivity,obedience and motherhood.
Mary seemes to be chosen for elevation by the church patriarchs to keep women passive and to belittle the female sex.

wolfsbane

hinault wrote: »

Stephen : if a woman was not "churched", she could be denied access to the church and was refused access to the sacraments, by some over zealous clergy.

My mother told me this (and she is a pious RC).

I agree that the blessing itself, is a nice thing to receive.
However, it was abused in many cases and it was used to exercise power and to deny the right of women to access the sacraments.

This practice seems to me a logical one for an organisation that has adopted wholesale the Old Testament priestly office. Since it has the altar, sacrifice, priesthood, robes, incense, etc, why would it not have the ceremonial period of uncleanness after a birth that Moses instructed?

The real NT church knew nothing of such offices. All Christians were priests unto God, and all the Mosiac ceremonial had no claim on them.

santing

Is not everyone RC (male/female) a priest according to the RC Catechism?

1268 The baptized have become "living stones" to be "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood."74 By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light."75 Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.

Stephentlig

Jesus chose his apostles only from Aramaic speakers,only from Judeans and only from Jews. Surely it was 'Gods plan' then only to have these types of people to imitate Christ on earth? So why are black and Irish men allowed to become priests when they were not represnted in the apostles?

And the evidence of your erroneous post clearly conveys that you have not studied Christianity at all.

All were from Jewish descent, but all were Christian the moment God breathed upon them in the upper room. The Jewish were a chosen people by God, but when he died and rose again, we are all to be seen as Gods chosen, and he gave the gift of the kingdom to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike St.Paul confirms this in scripture when he tells the new Christian converts who were not Jewish that all are to see themselves as the same as their ancestors who came out of Eygpt.

this is why any male from any culture or belief who converts to the Catholic church can be given the sacrament of Holy Orders for we are all to see ourselves as those who came up out of Egypt.

Jesus had close female companions but he didnt ordain them, he gave this only to men and were your contention is shown false is that you have no evidence from scripture or Sacred tradtion to prove your personal assertions otherwise.

Pax Christi
Stephen

Stephentlig

santing wrote: »

Is not everyone RC (male/female) a priest according to the RC Catechism?

1591 The whole Church is a priestly people. Through Baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the "common priesthood of the faithful." Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of Holy Orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the Head in the midst of the community.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a6.htm#1536

Wolfsbane also needs to understand when a woman approaches a priest for his blessing, it is not a precept of the church, therefore not a rule or law at all. just a nice gesture.

Pax Christi
Stephen

mdebets

Stephentlig wrote: »

And the evidence of your erroneous post clearly conveys that you have not studied Christianity at all.

All were from Jewish descent, but all were Christian the moment God breathed upon them in the upper room. The Jewish were a chosen people by God, but when he died and rose again, we are all to be seen as Gods chosen, and he gave the gift of the kingdom to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike St.Paul confirms this in scripture when he tells the new Christian converts who were not Jewish that all are to see themselves as the same as their ancestors who came out of Eygpt.

this is why any male from any culture or belief who converts to the Catholic church can be given the sacrament of Holy Orders for we are all to see ourselves as those who came up out of Egypt.

Jesus had close female companions but he didnt ordain them, he gave this only to men and were your contention is shown false is that you have no evidence from scripture or Sacred tradtion to prove your personal assertions otherwise.

You are measuring with two different yardsticks here.
We are talking here about two different attributes here, that all desciples of Jesus had. They were men and they were from Middle Eastern Descent. There were no women, no Greeks, no Romans, no Blacks, etc.
No you are saying one of these attributes does matter and one doesn't. You say, that the cultural background doesn't matter. You have European, Asian, African priest.
The other attribute however counts, so only man can be priests.
The argument of the RC Church for the later is that Jesus only choose men, so only men can be priests. However, Jesus also only choose Middle Eastern men, yet that is suddenly not important,
Can you explain why this is that one attribute is set above the other, even so the Bible doesn't say that one is more important than the other.

Stephentlig

mdebets wrote: »

You are measuring with two different yardsticks here.
We are talking here about two different attributes here, that all desciples of Jesus had. They were men and they were from Middle Eastern Descent. There were no women, no Greeks, no Romans, no Blacks, etc.
No you are saying one of these attributes does matter and one doesn't. You say, that the cultural background doesn't matter. You have European, Asian, African priest.
The other attribute however counts, so only man can be priests.
The argument of the RC Church for the later is that Jesus only choose men, so only men can be priests. However, Jesus also only choose Middle Eastern men, yet that is suddenly not important,
Can you explain why this is that one attribute is set above the other, even so the Bible doesn't say that one is more important than the other.

Hi, I'm struggling to comprehend your response, however I'll try my best to explain that nobody is putting anything above the other.

Jesus gave the gift of salvation to all, as I've already stated, St.Paul confirmed that in scripture.Romans:10: 11 ''For the scripture saith: Whosoever believeth in him, shall not be confounded.12 For there is no distinction of the Jew and the Greek: for the same is Lord over all, rich unto all that call upon him.''

its not that their cultural background is shown no importance, its just that its unimportant when it comes to the giving of the sacrament of Holy orders, of which anyone Christian/Catholic can receive.

The priest acts in persona Christi in the mass, this means he acts in the person of Christ, and since Christ was male it can only be a man who acts in persona Christi, it has nothing to do with the imitation of Christ which all the faithful are called to do whether female or male.

in summary: we cannot equate gender with race, they are two different things.

Pax Christi
Stephen<3

jill_valentine

Therefore we must ask where is all this clamouring for women priests coming from?

Well, from women, generally; that the largely male clergy tend not to grasp why such a thing might be important to them is not entirely unrelated to this.

The idea that male and female roles in the Church are "separate but equal" does not ring true in this context any more than it has in others in the past. It is not just a question of authority, but also of participation - women are simply not welcome to participate in many sectors of their own church, and then expected to accept that their role in the church is valued every bit as their male counterparts.

Insisting that their role is "not inferior", and then relegating them to the back of the bus at every practical opportunity when it comes to ceremonial and sacramental roles is feeble and disingenuous.

Ultravid wrote: »

T
Nevermind anything else, but to have women priests (which the Church says it has no authority to ordain) would rip the Church apart. It would be like the Protestant Reformation x100.

The implication here is quite troubling - a thing is no less important or right just because it is difficult. Particularly in the context of an institution very much concerned with right and wrong, the degree of difficulty involved shouldn't really be a consideration.

in summary: we cannot equate gender with race, they are two different things.

I don't think you're quite catching the point the other poster is making.

In one regard, the church rigidly adheres to a cultural tradition set down by a kind of demographic precedent - but in another, such a precedent is considered simply a product of happenstance, unimportant enough to be dismissed.


I'd be interested to hear another well-versed poster's take on the idea of "spritual lesbianism", and the gender of the church itself, too.

mdebets

Stephentlig wrote: »

The priest acts in persona Christi in the mass, this means he acts in the person of Christ, and since Christ was male it can only be a man who acts in persona Christi, it has nothing to do with the imitation of Christ which all the faithful are called to do whether female or male.

Romans 10, 11-12 also applies to women. So you say, all attributes (gender, race, haircolour, etc.) of a human don't matter, as far s salvation is concerned.
But when it comes to being a priest, some of the attributes matter and some don't.
You say, because Christ was male, a priest can only be male.
But Christ was also a Middle Eastern male, yet you don't say, a priest can only be a Middle Eastern male (because salvation is granted to all, an argument which you could also apply to women)
So where does Jesus say (or implied) in the Bible, that the gender was important, but the race wasn't.
Could the RC Church not have it the wrong way arround and Jesus wanted just Middle Eastern people to follow him as disciples , but didn't care about their gender.

Ultravid

panda100 wrote: »

I should state that I am no longer a Catholic and am an atheist,but hope my post is in spirit of the forum as it is a topic I have a genuine intrest in.




You say black people and white people are different,yet black men are allowed to become priests?
You say that women and men are different but women are not allowed to become priests? That to me seems wholly inconsistent.


I really don't think you understand much about Jesus Christ If you truly believe that being a man is the one salient variable when one is trying to imitate Christ.
Jesus chose his apostles only from Aramaic speakers,only from Judeans and only from Jews. Surely it was 'Gods plan' then only to have these types of people to imitate Christ on earth? So why are black and Irish men allowed to become priests when they were not represnted in the apostles?


I don't believe Jesus chose just men as his disciples as historical evidence makes it clear that he had extremly close female companions.
If he chose men to preach with, it wasnt because of some divine plan for the church,but because it was the path of least resistance at a time where women were still very much excluded from public life. There is little reason to think he intended the maleness of the apostles to be a binding precedent for the future.

I think Jesus was a revoloutionary of his time who did everything he could to stop the oppression of women and create equality between men and women. I think he would be disgusted at the churchs patriarchy which is absolutely and completely man made and self-serving. There is no indication that a male dominated church was in God's plan.



The history of Mary's exultation is extremely intresting and is one that completly confirmed my lack of belief in the RC church, as her exultation is complty man made.
Her elevation does not come from Jesus, but decisions made centuries after his deaths by a long line of pope's,many of whom brought their papal power. How on earth could a man in the 1800 know enough about a peasant girl from Palenstine, of which there is little known or written about, about to declare her free from original sin?

As a role model for women,Mary set downright contradictory standards, represnting the apothesis of virginity,passivity,obedience and motherhood.
Mary seemes to be chosen for elevation by the church patriarchs to keep women passive and to belittle the female sex.

See post #26 above and also this:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

wolfsbane

Stephentlig said:

Wolfsbane also needs to understand when a woman approaches a priest for his blessing, it is not a precept of the church, therefore not a rule or law at all. just a nice gesture.

OK, if you say it is not an RCC law, I'll accept your word. But why did this nice gesture arise? Who would have thought of it? Seems to me like a further borrowing of the OT Law:
Luke 2:22 Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD”), 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”

khan86

Hi,

I know I'm a little late to this thread but I just came across it now.

Stephentlig: You insist for people to back up their opinions with evidence of research yet when you have been given clear evidence that Wikipedia is not as unreliable as you first thought you quickly dismiss it because it contradicts your view Also, telling someome what they can and can't use to back up their points when replying to your opinion is a little condescending (*hugs*) This is a free forum, therefore the gospel according to Bart Simpson can be used as reference whether you like it or not.

Panda 100: I agree completely with everything you said in post #27 and think you made some great points.

Ultravid: The Protestant Reformation was completely necessary and forced the RCC to pull up its socks and I for one would welcome something like this again x100 considering everything that has been going on of late. Ecclesiastical reform is most definitely required before anybody who advocates the ordination of women would like to see it fully realised, myself included.
Also, the 'spiritual lesbianism' theory you used is quite ridiculous-using the Church's anti-gay stance to reinforce your argument against the ordination of women is a cheap shot.

Now, back to the topic of this thread. I did my final year thesis on the topic of the ordination of women in the Roman Catholic Church. I have some very strong opinions on this topic and it is something I feel passionately about. For anyone who would like to see what these opinions are I have attached my thesis, feel free to read it. It contradicts many of the points Stephentlig and Ultravid have made.

dublinguy2004

khan86 wrote: »

Hi,

I know I'm a little late to this thread but I just came across it now.

Stephentlig: You insist for people to back up their opinions with evidence of research yet when you have been given clear evidence that Wikipedia is not as unreliable as you first thought you quickly dismiss it because it contradicts your view Also, telling someome what they can and can't use to back up their points when replying to your opinion is a little condescending (*hugs*) This is a free forum, therefore the gospel according to Bart Simpson can be used as reference whether you like it or not.

Panda 100: I agree completely with everything you said in post #27 and think you made some great points.

Ultravid: The Protestant Reformation was completely necessary and forced the RCC to pull up its socks and I for one would welcome something like this again x100 considering everything that has been going on of late. Ecclesiastical reform is most definitely required before anybody who advocates the ordination of women would like to see it fully realised, myself included.
Also, the 'spiritual lesbianism' theory you used is quite ridiculous-using the Church's anti-gay stance to reinforce your argument against the ordination of women is a cheap shot.

Now, back to the topic of this thread. I did my final year thesis on the topic of the ordination of women in the Roman Catholic Church. I have some very strong opinions on this topic and it is something I feel passionately about. For anyone who would like to see what these opinions are I have attached my thesis, feel free to read it. It contradicts many of the points Stephentlig and Ultravid have made.

Feminism was hip in the 1970's. They even managed to worm their way into academia, of which you are an irrelevant remnant.

khan86

dublinguy2004 wrote: »

Feminism was hip in the 1970's. They even managed to worm their way into academia, of which you are an irrelevant remnant.

So was mysogyny, unfortunately it still is!

smurfhousing

khan86 wrote: »

So was mysogyny, unfortunately it still is!

You might find this interesting - it addresses the Tradition of the Church:
http://www.chastitysf.com/tradition.htm

This is on feminism:
http://www.chastitysf.com/q_fem.htm

And on the reason for Church Doctrine:
http://www.chastitysf.com/reason.htm

Now his tone might seem a little sharp, but he makes some interesting points.

smurfhousing

Amidst the (far now) silent clamourings for women in positions of authority in the Church (because women don't tolerate or cover-up abuse, right?) comes this bombshell from the USA, courtesy of Fr Z:

(Get the full story over here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/06/lcwrs-long-standing-coverup-of-sexual-abuse-of-children-by-nuns/ )

Consider for a moment a statement by Fr. Thomas Doyle, OP, – no conservative he – posted on 20 Sept. 2009 on the site of ex-priest Richard Sipe in an entry called "Sexual Abuse by Nuns".

Doyle says that the numbers of women religious who have abused children are "equal to the numbers of priests". Did you get that?

Let’s just read together for a moment with my emphases:

"The sexual and physical abuse by nuns is far more widespread than most people are aware of. The nuns have been protected by the inability of most people to believe that such things were possible but I can assure you, they were possible and the reality is far worse than one could imagine.

In light of the highly visible and vocal support of most contemporary nuns, including their leadership in LCWR for victims of social injustice both inside and outside the Church, we would certainly expect that they would quickly respond openly, honestly and with compassion to victims of religious women. The opposite has been true. The religious congregations of women who have been sued have fought the victims with a viciousness that was equal to or exceeded that of many bishops. The LCWR has treated the victims who have tried to communicate with them in a disgraceful and downright unchristian manner. They have been as cold, as clerical, as arrogant and as dishonest as the bishops.

They have refused to even consider cleaning the mess in their own house.

They have treated those who have brought the mess to their attention with cruelty and disdain."

And this just barely scratches the surface of how the LCWR has been avoiding the issue of sexual abuse of children by women religious.

[...]

Liberals harp that the "men’s club" of popes, bishops and priests covered up sexual abuse of children by male clerics. Therefore, they whine, male priesthood and celibacy have to be changed. "If only women were priests!", they lament. "If only women were in power positions!" The slimy irony is that the liberal-dominated LCWR has covered up abuse of children by women religious. NCR doesn’t want to cover that story. Why? Could it be that a large number of their readers are aging women religious? NCR doesn’t want to jeopardize their base. Perhaps LCWR doesn’t want to jeopardize collections taken up in parishes for their own support.

You won't be seeing this in the MSM anytime soon. It doesn't fit their agenda.