Abuse cases show need for greater women's role, Vatican newspaper says

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ahimsa

Guest
VATICAN CITY (CNS) – 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.
Click to expand...
The article said that despite calls by popes and others for welcoming women into equal, though diverse, roles in the church, women have generally been kept out of positions of responsibility.
Click to expand...
As a result, the church has failed to take advantage of the many talents and contributions that could have been provided by women, it said.
Click to expand...
 
We need more religious sisters and brothers to help shoulder the burdens, and we need priests, deacons, and bishops to be unwavering in their condemnation of any abuse by someone in authority, especially someone in spiritual authority. I am thankful to live in the diocese of Dallas, because we have strong priests and deacons and our bishop is very strong as well.
 
It’s obvious this reporter is writing from a limited perspective. Look at any chancery in the U.S. There’s a lot more women than men in diocesan positions these days.
 
That’s true, but I suspect few have any meaningful authority. And I bet there is even a greater lack of women in influencial positions in places like the Vatican.

More women need more authority. Generally speaking, they couldn’t do much worse than the men have.
 
Veil of masculine secrecy? I was unaware that pederasty was a masculine trait. Veil of homosexual secrecy would be accurate.
 
I don’t mind women having some roles as long as the women are nuns, and as long as those roles exclude the priesthood.

Women having power in the Church do not neccesarily mean liberalism, etc; Pope Pius XII’s housekeeper and close confidant Mother Pascalina basically ran the Church in the last few years of a very conservative and orthodox papacy when Pius was in bad health, and when she met Pope John XIII protested against many of the Vatican II changes.
 
LtTony said:
That’s true, but I suspect few have any meaningful authority. And I bet there is even a greater lack of women in influencial positions in places like the Vatican.

More women need more authority. Generally speaking, they couldn’t do much worse than the men have.
Click to expand...
You obviously don’t know any of those women personally. 😉 Trust me, they wield a great deal of power (far more power than I’m really comfortable with a non-ordained person possessing).

The Vatican has been placing women in certain curial positions in recent years. Grant it, I think there’s only three of them at the moment. I know many want it to move more quickly, but the Church doesn’t make snap decisions to appease the populace.

What we need to keep in mind is that many positions in the Roman Curia have typically all been held by bishops. Some of these positions need to be held by a bishop because the bishops are the successors to the Apostles with all the authority that goes with it. Other positions do not need to be held by bishops or even priests. It will take time to sort out which is which.

The Catholic Church is a hierarchical Church and the Hierarchy (those ordained) will always be men. The teaching authority of the Church in particular belongs to the Pope and the bishops in union with him. This will always be men. This doesn’t mean that women have no role, though. A great many diocesan religious ed offices are populated by lay women and religious sisters. But they don’t share in that charism of infallibility that belongs to the Magisterium of the Church.
 
Giving the church over to be ruled by laity…
Click to expand...
You obviously don’t know any of those women personally.
Click to expand...
I’m not suggesting anything close to “privatizing” the church. We *are *the church, btw.

And I’m not suggesting women are powerless in the church. But relatively speaking, they can and should be entrusted with more.
…as long as those roles exclude the priesthood.
Click to expand...
I didn’t suggest otherwise.
Veil of masculine secrecy? I was unaware that pederasty was a masculine trait. Veil of homosexual secrecy would be accurate.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t disagree with that last statement at all. However, I think decisions can be colored a certain way when it ultimately and exclusively old, unmarried men making them. Most of the time that isn’t an issue. In fact, through the grace of Our Lord and the Holy Spirit, it is generally the best.

Please don’t misunderstand that I’m talking absolutes with the earlier observation.
 
LtTony said:
I’m not suggesting anything close to “privatizing” the church. We *are *the church, btw.

And I’m not suggesting women are powerless in the church. But relatively speaking, they can and should be entrusted with more.

I didn’t suggest otherwise.

I wouldn’t disagree with that last statement at all. However, I think decisions can be colored a certain way when it ultimately and exclusively old, unmarried men making them. Most of the time that isn’t an issue. In fact, through the grace of Our Lord and the Holy Spirit, it is generally the best.

Please don’t misunderstand that I’m talking absolutes with the earlier observation.
Click to expand...
More what?

Women cannot be ordained. So what is the “more” you speak of?

Today, women control at least 90% of all Catholic education beneath university level. They control at least 90% of all Catechism programs and Religious Education programs. They fill the vast majority of parish level adminstrative and leadership roles, including many boards. They fill directorships, and professorships. Women are typically the ones in the homes that make sure the kids get Catholic formation and education (husbands and fathers have abdicated their roles to their wives, thereby allowing themselves to be emasculated). Women are now filling more lay roles in the Vatican.

The only area women are not fully entrenched is in Holy Orders/Ordination. So, it seems to me what you are really saying is that women should be ordained as well. Yet, tell me, putting aside the fact that ordination has been reserved by God for men, if women were to become ordained, what then would be left for men? Would the Church not then become a Church for females only?

Isn’t it possible, just possible, that what we need is more real men, and NOT more women?
 
That is what I call hitting the nail on the head! Normal humans would not have committed such reprehensible acts or, when informed of them, would have done “the right thing.”

Unfortunately, that is not the reality we have at hand.

Am I saying “more women” will or would have been the cure all for the scandal? Of course not.

Did I say women should be ordained? No.

All I am saying with “more women” in positions of influence is essentially it might have provided a broader, more diverse perspective in dealing with it. The reaction we did get certainly wasn’t effective or appropriate, generally speaking.

And I agree with you that women have a vibrant and effective role in the life of the church at the grassroots level. Priests are only part of that life.
When I hear others claim the church is sexist, for example, I mention the same things you mention. The only thing women can’t be are priests. And I think we agree that is only one role of many needed for the Church. I would just feel more comfortable if more women served as upper-echelon advisors in law, sociology, theology, etc.

What I am speaking of is specifically the abuse scandal. I have yet to see any mention of church women playing a role in the tragic way these cases were generally handled. These were criminal matters that caused profound psychological damage to the victims and our faith community. They were not “religious” matters that should have been confined to a pastoral approach.

I didn’t say a female presence was non-existent, just possibly lacking in this matter in particular.
 
LtTony said:
That is what I call hitting the nail on the head! Normal humans would not have committed such reprehensible acts or, when informed of them, would have done “the right thing.”

Unfortunately, that is not the reality we have at hand.

Am I saying “more women” will or would have been the cure all for the scandal? Of course not.

Did I say women should be ordained? No.

All I am saying with “more women” in positions of influence is essentially it might have provided a broader, more diverse perspective in dealing with it. The reaction we did get certainly wasn’t effective or appropriate, generally speaking.

And I agree with you that women have a vibrant and effective role in the life of the church at the grassroots level. Priests are only part of that life.
When I hear others claim the church is sexist, for example, I mention the same things you mention. The only thing women can’t be are priests. And I think we agree that is only one role of many needed for the Church. I would just feel more comfortable if more women served as upper-echelon advisors in law, sociology, theology, etc.

What I am speaking of is specifically the abuse scandal. I have yet to see any mention of church women playing a role in the tragic way these cases were generally handled. These were criminal matters that caused profound psychological damage to the victims and our faith community. They were not “religious” matters that should have been confined to a pastoral approach.

I didn’t say a female presence was non-existent, just possibly lacking in this matter in particular.
Click to expand...
What I feel you do not see is that your desire leads to the conclusion that women should be ordained, even if that was not your intent. The only thing women cannot be is Priests, that is an obvious fact to which we both agree. However, in order for women to be more closely involved in the higher levels of the abuse cases, they would need to be ordained.
 
It would seem that already the real role of women ie religious in the abuse here in Ireland has been forgotten in this astonishing article. And many were religious in positions of authority in eg the Mercy Sisters… see the Magdalen Laundry scandal, Goldenbridge and many others.

In some proven and officially recorded cases, these women religious procured young girls for the priests to abuse.
 
On a practical level, it seems to me that most parishes and dioceses are virtually run on a daily basis by women.

As for sexual abuse, would female oversight have helped? I don’t know. Women are increasingly as prone to sexual abuse as men–witness the recent spate of cases in the public schools of sexual abuse of boys by female teachers.
 
Hi all

I’m newbie here and came to this topic on forums.catholic-questions.org from google search engine.

I really think this topic on forums.catholic-questions.org is really interesting.

I’m work on payday loans related work and I have a blog which giving out info about loans

For those, who asked me about payday loans reviews, I’ve obtained useful news about it. Now I don’t have to worry about the unexpected bill getting paid. No personal questions, bad credit accepted, and the money is directly deposited into your checking account. I would suggest news77.com/payday-loans/ to anyone who needs quick, fast payday loans.

There you can find the most trusted US compared lenders! I really hope that everyone here don’t need some unexpected cash, but if any emergency appears, do not hesitate to use these services!

Keep smiling
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top