A Nope for Pope [NYT: Dowd]

[rlg94086]

But the Catholic Church has changed the rule on whether women should wear headcovering in Church and whether women are required to be silent in Church. These rules have been changed in the CATHOLIC CHUIRCH. So if these rules have been changed in the CATHOLIC CHURCH then why cannot they also change the rule on women priests?

Becomes some rules are disciplines (e.g. the celibate priesthood), while others are dogmatic (e.g. male priesthood).

 

[rlg94086]

I still have not received a single substantial explanation about why women cannot be priests/bishops/cardinals/popes. Everything I have heard reminds me of arguments used in the 19th century to keep women from the workplace. All I have heard from the Church are explanations and theories that reflect the Roman era when this doctrine became hardened.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19940727en.html

Quite recently some women, even among Catholics, have asserted a claim to the ministerial priesthood. This demand is based on an untenable assumption. The priestly ministry is not a function one approaches on the basis of sociological criteria or legal procedures, but only in obedience to the will of Christ. Now, Jesus has entrusted the task of the ministerial priesthood only to males. Although he invited some women to follow him and even sought their cooperation, he did not call or allow any of them to be part of the group he entrusted with the ministerial priesthood in his Church. His will is seen in his behavior as a whole, as well as in significant actions which Christian tradition has constantly interpreted as directions to be followed.
…
The permanent and normative value of this practice cannot be contested by saying that Christ’s manifest will was due to the mentality of his time and to prejudice against women then and later. In reality, Jesus never conformed to a mentality unfavorable to women and indeed reacted against inequalities based on sexual differences. By calling women to follow him he showed that he went beyond the customs and outlook of his environment. If he reserved the ministerial priesthood to men, he did so with full freedom, and in his provisions and choices he took no stance unfavorable to women.

If a reason is sought as to why Jesus reserved admission to the ministerial priesthood to men, it can be discovered in the fact that the priest represents Christ himself in his relationship to the Church. Now, this relationship is spousal in nature: Christ is the bridegroom (cf. Mt 9:15; Jn 3:29; 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25); the Church is the bride (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-27, 31-32; Rev 19:7; 21:9). Because the relationship between Christ and the Church is validly expressed in sacramental Orders, it is necessary that Christ be represented by a man. The distinction between the sexes is very significant in this case and cannot be disregarded without undermining the sacrament. Indeed, the specific nature of the sign used is essential to the sacraments. Baptism has to be performed with water that washes; it cannot be done with oil, which anoints, even though oil is more expensive than water. Analogously, the sacrament of Orders is celebrated with men, without questioning the value of persons. Thus, we can understand the Council’s teaching that priests are ordained “in such a way that they can act in the person of Christ the head” (PO 2), “exercising the office of Christ, the shepherd and head, and according to their share of his authority” (PO 6).
…
We can close then by saying that Jesus, in not assigning the ministerial priesthood to women, did not put them in an inferior position, nor deprive them of a right that might be theirs, nor violate woman’s equality with man. Rather, he acknowledged and respected their dignity. By instituting the ministerial priesthood for men, he did not intend to make them superior but to call them to a humble service modeled on that of the Son of Man (cf. Mk 10:45; Mt 20:28). By assigning woman a mission corresponding to her personality, he elevated her dignity and confirmed the right to her own originality in the Church too.

 

[rlg94086]

Christ chose men to be hs disciples, not women.

Minor correction - “apostles” not “disciples.” Disciples were both men and women.

 

[tomarin]

Let us remember that all recent popes, had they been women, would have come to the papacy well past the age for pms. So, no worries on that score.

Otherwise, I think Maureen Dowd is playing dumb. She knows the church better than she shows herself knowing. She gets a pretty nice paycheck for being provocative.

One thing she doesn’t understand (and it’s a pretty big thing) is that the Catholic Church doesn’t worship at the altar of progress, as she does. And she can’t stand that. That’s about the extent of her knowledge of and interest in Catholicism, as far as I can see, based on reading a number of her opinion pieces.

Still, if you church claims to be the Bride of Christ, she really ought to stop acting like the Bride of Frankenstein. Ratzinger is not really guilty of anything (as far as we know, and I hope and presume he will not be shown to be later).

If he hasn’t done anything wrong, as you admit, what possible justification could there be for the raw loathing and vituperation found in her article(s)? Do you find it charitable or just to speak about the highest prelate of one of the major branches of Christianity that way?

But this is the problem for Catholics. Catholics complain loudly when the press doesn’t reflect all the nicities of its teachings. But when you hold yourself out as having a charter from Jesus Christ himself, to the exclusion of other Christian bodies, you have to expect to have your pecadillos magnified. The greater the claim, the greater the expectations.

Is it too much to ask that any criticism leveled at the Catholic Church be actually based on sound facts and not unproven allegations and half-truths? I’m willing to live with legitimate criticisms but nothing Maureen Dowd has written so far about Catholicism meets that standard.

 

[Zatzat]

I just previewed that book and my jaw dropped.No wonder these so-called nuns and their heterodox covens are being investigated by tn he vatican.These old feminist misandryist witches have to go!Excommunicate them!-

Why don’t you tell us how you really feel?

 

[Catherine_S]

From the Slimes:
Now we learn the sickening news that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, nicknamed “God’s Rottweiler” when he was the church’s enforcer on matters of faith and sin,** ignored repeated warnings and looked away in the case of the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, a Wisconsin priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys.**
…

And it continues…

:ehh:

March 30, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com*) - Fr. Thomas Brundage, a former judge for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee who oversaw the 1996 canonical proceedings against Fr. Lawrence Murphy, has shot back at New York Times and Associated Press articles that have attempted to implicate Pope Benedict XVI in a “cover-up” of clerical abuse by Fr. Murphy, and others. *
Brundage slammed the news organizations for making "a huge leap of logic and information" in connecting the pontiff to the case involving Fr. Murphy, and* for failing to do the basic courtesy of contacting him or checking the accuracy of quotations erroneously attributed to him.
"As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts**,** I am also writing out of a sense of duty to the truth," *he wrote.
"The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself."

Brundage has come to the defense of the pope, writing that “Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured.”
In addition, Brundage has pointed out the much-ignored fact that Fr. Murphy “was still the defendant in a church criminal trial” on the day that he died, and that he was by no means scot-free. The former canonical judge describes his investigation into Fr. Murphy’s abuse as “the darkest days of my own priesthood,” and says that, “Had I been asked to abate this trial, I most certainly would have insisted that an appeal be made to the supreme court of the church, or Pope John Paul II if necessary.”
Brundage has also pointed out, as an example of the “sloppy” reporting on the issue, the fact that the NYT and AP erroneously attributed to himself two quotations from a 1997 handwritten document, and failed to check the source.
"The documents were not written by me and do not resemble my handwriting," wrote Brundage. "The syntax is similar to what I might have said but I have no idea who wrote these statements, yet I am credited as stating them. ***
Regarding then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s involvement in the case, Brundage said he had “no reason to believe” the current pontiff “was involved at all.” “Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logicand information,” he said.
Brundage also claimed that, when the handling of sex abuse cases was shifted from the Roman Rota to the Congregation of for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2001, "in my observation as well as many of my canonical colleagues, sexual abuse cases were handled expeditiously, fairly, and with due regard to the rights of all the parties involved. I have no doubt that this was the work of then Cardinal Ratzinger."*
"Pope Benedict has repeatedly apologized for the shame of the sexual abuse of children in various venues and to a worldwide audience. This has never happened before," said the priest. "He has met with victims. He has reigned in entire conferences of bishops on this matter, the Catholic Bishops of Ireland being the most recent. *
"He has been most reactive and proactive of any international church official in history with regard to the scourge of clergy sexual abuse of minors. Instead of blaming him for inaction on these matters, he has truly been a strong and effective leader on these issues."***
*(Click here to read Fr. Brundage’s article in full.) *

 

[tomarin]

:ehh:

Fr. Thomas Brundage, a former judge for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee who oversaw the 1996 canonical proceedings against Fr. Lawrence Murphy, has shot back at New York Times and Associated Press articles that have attempted to implicate Pope Benedict XVI in a “cover-up” of clerical abuse by Fr. Murphy, and others

A dark day for the Times.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Let me rise in defense of our Presiding Bishop. She is not, and cannot be, self-appointed. She was elected. Nor has she arrogated to herself any of the unique perogatives of a pope.

That is the end of my defense.

Now, my dear Catholic friend, whatever you think of a female bishop, and let me say I am likely in agreement with you on that, you do Roman Catholic women a great disservice by suggesting that a nun-pope, however preposterous that may be, would not be an orthodox upholder of Catholic teachings.

The Episcopal Church decided to have a self-appointed female pope. Next time an idiot tries to suggest such a thing, just remember what Her Unholiness has done for American Anglicanism

Ok…anger out of my system…Holy Week blessings to you all, friends.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

If he hasn’t done anything wrong, as you admit, what possible justification could there be for the raw loathing and vituperation found in her article(s)? Do you find it charitable or just to speak about the highest prelate of one of the major branches of Christianity that way?

Is it too much to ask that any criticism leveled at the Catholic Church be actually based on sound facts and not unproven allegations and half-truths? I’m willing to live with legitimate criticisms but nothing Maureen Dowd has written so far about Catholicism meets that standard.

Benedict does not deserve the mud being slung at him. But he has to understand that when you are pope, it goes with the territory, just as Barack Obama has found about being president.

Both your questions beg for the same answer. Of course it is not charitable. And by the way, Benedict is not a prelate, he is a primate. But I didn’t think we were talking about the impossible here. Charity from the sphere of public discourse went out of style… naaaa…it was never in style. It is often in short supply on CAF. Indeed, the reaction the bishop of Brooklyn (Bronx?) was about as high minded as that of “La Dowd” herself.

Unfortunately, the church is just now finding that when you wrestle with pigs, you get muddy. It may be the right thing to do. But don’t expect the secular press to simply say “mea culpa”. The church is in the public sphere. This is a dialog in the public sphere. The side with the best argument will win, at least will win my support.

 

[prodigal-sun]

St. Paul says that women should be silent in Church and that they should wear headcovering. Now that rule has changed from what is was for hundreds of years before Vatican II. If they have changed that rule, then why can they not change the rule on women priests?

You equate wearing a head covering to the sacrament of ordination. Can a woman be a man. This is the question you need to answer. Whether you believe a woman should be able to be a presit or not is irrrelvant. The Church can not change a woman into a man. They can certainly change a woman into a non-head scarve woman from a head-scarve wearing women. This is easily done. But to change a women into a man is a bit different because this is what you are doing by equating these 2 issuses.

Peace!

 

[prodigal-sun]

Let us remember that all recent popes, had they been women, would have come to the papacy well past the age for pms. So, no worries on that score.

Otherwise, I think Maureen Dowd is playing dumb. She knows the church better than she shows herself knowing. She gets a pretty nice paycheck for being provocative.

Still, if you church claims to be the Bride of Christ, she really ought to stop acting like the Bride of Frankenstein. Ratzinger is not really guilty of anything (as far as we know, and I hope and presume he will not be shown to be later).

But this is the problem for Catholics. Catholics complain loudly when the press doesn’t reflect all the nicities of its teachings. But when you hold yourself out as having a charter from Jesus Christ himself, to the exclusion of other Christian bodies, you have to expect to have your pecadillos magnified. The greater the claim, the greater the expectations.

This Anglican, carefully considering the offer made by the pope to our church, feels less sure that the RCC is all it claims to be in light of these recent events. Perhaps it’s irrational, but there you are.

NIcely put, I think we should feel honored that the enemies of God feel the need to Criticise us. It reinforces my faith in the church when the world rallies against us.

Peace!

 

[sidbrown]

You equate wearing a head covering to the sacrament of ordination. Can a woman be a man. This is the question you need to answer. Whether you believe a woman should be able to be a presit or not is irrrelvant. The Church can not change a woman into a man. They can certainly change a woman into a non-head scarve woman from a head-scarve wearing women. This is easily done. But to change a women into a man is a bit different because this is what you are doing by equating these 2 issuses.

Peace!

Obviously the Church cannot change a woman into a man. My question was whether or not rules governing the functions of women in the Church could change. Do you deny that many Catholic theologians teaching in Catholic theology departments in Catholic colleges and universities have a different opinion from what you are expressing here?

 

[Corki]

Obviously the Church cannot change a woman into a man. My question was whether or not rules governing the functions of women in the Church could change. Do you deny that many Catholic theologians teaching in Catholic theology departments in Catholic colleges and universities have a different opinion from what you are expressing here?

No, the rules on this cannot change because they are “rules” of doctrine, not discipline.

As for your second question, I have yet to see a Catholic theologian who voices the opinion that women can be priests, who does not also hold other positions counter to Church teaching. Do you know any that are faithful to Church teaching on every other issue except this one? If not, they are dissidents and, whether they teach in a “Catholic” college or not, their opinions are not worth listening to.

 

[Cinette]

Let us remember that all recent popes, had they been women, would have come to the papacy well past the age for pms. So, no worries on that score.

Otherwise, I think Maureen Dowd is playing dumb. She knows the church better than she shows herself knowing. She gets a pretty nice paycheck for being provocative.

Still, if you church claims to be the Bride of Christ, she really ought to stop acting like the Bride of Frankenstein. Ratzinger is not really guilty of anything (as far as we know, and I hope and presume he will not be shown to be later).

But this is the problem for Catholics. Catholics complain loudly when the press doesn’t reflect all the nicities of its teachings. But when you hold yourself out as having a charter from Jesus Christ himself, to the exclusion of other Christian bodies, you have to expect to have your pecadillos magnified. The greater the claim, the greater the expectations.

This Anglican, carefully considering the offer made by the pope to our church, feels less sure that the RCC is all it claims to be in light of these recent events. Perhaps it’s irrational, but there you are.

You are correct - you are being irrational. Who among us is without sin? The Catholic Church has an amazing record - outstanding men and women who have sacrificed their lives - holy men and women.

Who among us has not sinned? Can you lay yourself bare before people and expose everything you have done in your life? Is there something you have done in your life that you would rather forget? Do you have any skeletons in your cupboard? I have. Why not make an examination of conscience NOW and be honest - can you expose everything you have done in your life?

You say that you “feel less sure that the RCC is all it claims to be in light of recent events”. This is ridiculous.

Look at Peter in whom Jesus empowered to be his representative on earth, Peter who denied Jesus three times - in spite of the fact that not long before he had WITNESSED Jesus’ divinity at the Transfiguration. Where were the Apostles (except for John) when Jesus was crucified? Were the Apostles lily white? What about Judas? Had he asked for forgiveness and mercy Jesus would have forgiven him - Jesus is full of mercy - we are sinners. Go and read Matt 13:24-30 and meditate on it and you will understand that the struggle between good and evil is ongoing until the day of judgment when Jesus will come again to judge the living and the dead. The devil will always do his best to tempt us. He chooses those who are closest to God. The days preceding my son’s baptism he was attacked by the devil - it was a physical thing - he was torn apart. He began to doubt whether he should go through with his baptism. While he was shaving he felt the attack. A priest I know and love very much was once asked by two Protestant girls to come and pray in their apartment because they were under attack. The furniture was flying all over and it was very scary. The priest explained that he was not an exorcist and had never experienced such things but finally agreed. He ordered all windows to be closed and prayed and sprinkled holy water. When he arrived home at the presbytry and as he got out of his car he was attached by an unseen being - he had scratches all over his face and a black eye. The girls phoned to report that all was well about a week later. The priest, in going back over the events of that night came to the conclusion that he had not blocked the keyhole and the evil spirit/spirits must have got out through the keyhole!

Eversince these two episodes I have had a greater awareness of the devil and his antics and I realise that the devil does not need to target the unbelievers and big sinners, he aims at those who are being drawn closer to God - he does this in many different ways not just physical attacks. We will find him in the pews at Church and if you think that the Episcopal Church has no sinners then yes, I agree, stay right where you are.

God bless you
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

Which is the Church that is uncompromising regarding artificial birth control?
Which Church refuses to bow down (more than any other church) and yield to Abortion?
Which is the Church that fights against embryonic stem cell research?
Which is the Church that fights against gay “marriages”?
Which is the most unpopular Church with the secular world?
Which is the Church that is constantly under attack by the likes of Dawkins and Dan Brown?
Which is the Church with the most enemies?

…
Having said that I could go on and ask questions about all the good things the Church has done and continues to do today. The list is endless.

When I was at boarding school - a Catholic Convent where most of us were Protestants, if a Catholic girl did something wrong, the others would say "…AND she is a Catholic! Somehow, unconsciously, they expected more from us.

God bless us all
Cinette

 

[sidbrown]

Which is the Church that is uncompromising regarding artificial birth control?

If the Catholic Church is so much against artificial birth control, can you kindly explain to me why in our neighborhood the Muslim families have five or six children per family, whereas the Catholic families have two usually, although there are a few with more.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

If the Catholic Church is so much against artificial birth control, can you kindly explain to me why in our neighborhood the Muslim families have five or six children per family, whereas the Catholic families have two usually, although there are a few with more.

Because too many Catholics, like you, are dissidents.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Cinette]

If the Catholic Church is so much against artificial birth control, can you kindly explain to me why in our neighborhood the Muslim families have five or six children per family, whereas the Catholic families have two usually, although there are a few with more.

1. Natural Birth Control - I have a cousin who practices this - she has three children, the youngest of whom is now 12 and she says it works well. I have no experience of this.
2. The Muslims want more children.
3. Maybe these families practice artificial birth control. Some Catholics believe that in following their conscience they are doing the right thing.

I saw an interview on TV with a Gynaeclogist the other day who gave some facts about the pill which are scary.

Many years ago I took the pill for one month and abandoned it because I thought that I didn’t want to risk it - I didn’t know how this could affect me in latter years. I have four children and wanted each one of them.

Cinette

 

[sidbrown]

Because too many Catholics, like you, are dissidents.

In Christ,

Ellen

I have to protest your uncharitable slander.
Best wishes for a Happy Easter.

 

[sidbrown]

1. Natural Birth Control - I have a cousin who practices this - she has three children, the youngest of whom is now 12 and she says it works well. I have no experience of this.
2. The Muslims want more children.
3. Maybe these families practice artificial birth control. Some Catholics believe that in following their conscience they are doing the right thing.

I saw an interview on TV with a Gynaeclogist the other day who gave some facts about the pill which are scary.

Many years ago I took the pill for one month and abandoned it because I thought that I didn’t want to risk it - I didn’t know how this could affect me in latter years. I have four children and wanted each one of them.

Cinette

Well, then does it look like the Muslims are more uncompromising against ABC than Catholics are? At least if you take a look at the size of their families in our neighborhood.