are girls not important?

[thedavidwilson]

NOTHING prepares you for motherhood. So guys just get lucky?
They don’t have anything that prepares you for the convent either. Again…what’s up with that? It’s no small wonder that girls seem more confused than gius about what vocation they will pursue because really…The exposure is so limited. You see the Priest every sunday so you have an understanding but…who really knows what nuns are up to? So other than that you have constant exposure to Mothers and marriage so every girl just ASSUMES they’re gonna get married and have babies. Which simply is not true. So many women have probably missed their calling by the time they’re 40 and can’t figure out why the relationship thing didn’t work out. And then we get these complaints about there not being enough people of either sex pursuing a religious vocation. Gee…I wonder why? If people are under-exposed then they aren’t going to even consider it because they don’t know much. Back when my mom was in school, nuns actually taught and stuff and many of the girls grew up to become nuns. Now, most catholic schools hire professors. Altar boys become priests due to exposure to other priests at mass. But the last time I saw a nun was the doctor who did my pelvic exam. I almost never see them at church and if they are there, they don’t dress like nuns so none even notices.

You are exactly right. Many of these problems arose from the false implementation/interpretation of Vatican II. Nuns should be in habits and priests in cassocks. They threw these away with the changes in the 60’s. They were suppose to go out into the world yet instead many religious became like the world: secular. When a child sees a nun nowadays they see an old woman who dresses like everybody else and does not make much money. They see nothing special. Appearances make a difference. There is a reason marines wear uniforms and there is a reason children look up to them and want to be them. It is not for the vast sums of money they make . It is because of the honor and authority they project makes the children to follow in their footsteps. Often times holiness is not visible. We need these outward signs to show us what is special. Unfortunately religious do not often show these outward signs.

Priests and religious should stop trying to be “one of us”. They are special and need to project that specialness and their authority.

It is interesting to note that the convents and seminaries who are more traditional are the ones that are overflowing while the more liberal ones are dying off.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Altar boys become priests due to exposure to other priests at mass. But the last time I saw a nun was the doctor who did my pelvic exam.

I fear you make a lot of assumptions here, but overall I understand what you mean.

Nuns, for the most part, don’t wear habits. You do see them sometimes, and the few nuns who do wear them, compounded by the few women going into a convent today, become novelties. For those parishes lucky enough to have a convent, everyone knows who the nuns are, habit or not. But the problem goes deeper than that. Monks, brothers and nuns live contemplative lifestyles, and the differences between one order or another are as various as the differences between one person and another. Hardcore contemplatives (if I may use the term hardcore when discussing contemplatives) pray the seven liturgical hours, or the “Divine Office.” Not all do. *Really *hardcore contemplatives *chant *the office in Latin, and live almost like hermits, whether they be mendicants like the Benedictines, or beggars like the Fransciscans. Or atheists like the Jesuits (just kidding!). …
I was a diocesan seminarian once, and the Jesuits were fun to poke fun at. If I’ve scandalized anyone, I’m sorry. Ahem

Othewise, different communities have different “charisms,” like how the LaSallian Christian Brothers are primarily teachers, and the Alexians work in medicine (with derivatives of course). Nuns do just about everything. Mother Teresa’s order washes lepers in Calcutta, Mother Angelica’s order runs a TV empire (began humbly, I’m told, but talk about visibility!) others are in jungles with remote populations, etc.

But the visibility of nuns, or lack thereof, is not the problem. We in the US do not live in a contemplative society. Our society is actually hostile to a contemplative lifestyle. And the priest’s visibility at Mass has not raised vocations one bit. As a diocesan seminarian we lived with priests, studied with priests, worked with priests, ate with priests, and more than half of my class didn’t go to the major seminary.

If I may interpret your opening line more broadly, nothing prepares one for religious life, period. The term discernment comes into play. The question is, are you called by God? Has God called you out of the world (in that special way–we are all called out of the world, though we live in it) to live a contemplative lifestyle. No recruitment campaign for holy orders has ever worked based on its ability to persuade. There was a really cool one some years back, bilboards with priests on them, and the caption “Good guys wear black.” Was there a spike in vocations? Nope. Someone may refute me here, but if you are called, you hear it in your heart, whether you are male or female. As a seminarian, you don’t want to know how many times friends or family (“good” Catholics, I should add) suggested or implied something to the effect of “You know you can’t have sex if you’re a priest, right?”

A call to religious life can be a confusing thing. We live in a society where, for many, having a priest or a nun or a brother in the family is okay for someone else’s family, but not their own. Most vocations, I’m sure, are lost like the examples given in the parable of the sower. The “hard ground” might be the inner city, where educational institutions are overwhelmed and girls are dehumanized; the one where the seed grows to be choked by the weeds might be the suburbs. People in the suburbs can feel just as trapped as people living in inner cities. Etc.

But someone with a genuine calling *feels *it. They are drawn to it, and eventually begin asking questions, doing research and not quite knowing why they are doing it. “Hmm, this website says that O.F.M means the Order of Friars Minor = the Franciscans. Interesting.” And then one day they’re making a phone call, and an astute brother or sister on the other line says “Hey, why don’t you come over? Check out the place, stay for dinner.” Many orders have some kind of aspirancy program set up for discernment of vocations.

Wow this is getting long. My point is that you cannot blame a lack of vocations on visibility alone. But on the other hand, what you say is true; there are *many *(did I say many?) *many **many *people out there who *ignored *their calling. Flat out ignored it. There are many others who dropped their calling, or it was strangled out of them like weeds choking roses.

What can we do? If you’re reading this post, I have empowered you. If you know someone you believe has a vocation: TELL THEM. That is one of the signs of a vocation, when people tell you “Hey, you’d make a good priest.” “Hey, you inspire me. You could be a nun and work in spiritual direction.” If the person has felt a calling in their heart, that feeling, combined with you confirming their suspicions (likely they’ve told no one about their feelings in this world which is hostile to vocations), will set them off. They need guidance. They will start making phone calls and reaching out. If an order reaches back, you may have something.

But overall it is a faulty cause-and-effect premise to say that girls lose their potential vocations due to low visibilty of nuns, or that allowing girls to be altar servers is somehow going to benefit vocations. And really, what better recruitment than to be treated by Dr. Nun?

Obviously this issue is more complicated, but I’m tired and I have to go to bed. Peace in Christ, Nom the Wise.

 

[Canto]

IMO, catholacism is shunning girls who may develop a more fuller and rich relationship with Christ but didn’t because they were “left out” and weren’t as important as the boys in their parishes. Can’t even be alter girls?

Women play an important role in the Church. The parish I attend has one Mass on Sunday, the parish next door a zillion throughout the week. It’s more than 100 years old and each Sunday there is a different priest. The parish is run by a dominican nun! She is a great role model for us all.

At mass we recieve the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist. That seems to me to be a pretty rich relationship with Christ.

My parish has women and girls in a myriad of diffent rolls, from music, to charity fundraising, to finance comitties (sp?) and on and on.

Not that’s you are suggesting that Catholic women are oppressed but the following article is brilliant and I recommend everyone have a read. It was written in about 10 years ago.

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705fea2.asp

here is a snippit
Are Catholic women oppressed by a patriarchal Church, which marginalizes them and their opinions, talents, and gifts? Has the Church denied women education, spiritual formation, and opportunities for service?

To be a Catholic woman today is to be on the receiving end of such questions with an assumption on the part of the questioner that the answer will be an automatic “Yes.” Indeed, the questions are seen as rhetorical. Surely, it is implied, everyone knows that women may not be ordained as Catholic priests, that they are oppressed by a vision of marriage and family life that treats them as childbearing serfs within the home.

The reality, of course, is hugely different. Catholic women are not oppressed by the Church and are getting increasingly tired of being told that they are. It is important that we set the record straight and speak out for the reality of our lives and our history.

---

Blessed Mary Mackillop pray for us to God, Amen.
Ave, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.

 

[ljprevo]

Mine was not an argument to preclude any one (girls or boys) from being Altar Servers, only to point out that not being an Altar Server in no way keeps any one from God.

BINGO!

And if anyone is going to mass for their own self gratification that is an issue in itself!

 

[GemmaRose]

I’ve thought about this too. I think women should take heart. After all, supposedly more women will get into heaven than men. Anyway, we do know God created men and women differently…

Yes, He created a man, and then improved on the model and created a woman!
(Sorry, couldn’t resist!)

---

*“Dear God, do You know the greatest grief one of Your creatures can bear? It is the thought that she can never love You enough. ” *- St. Gemma Galgani

 

[LilyM]

But the last time I saw a nun was the doctor who did my pelvic exam.

You had a doctor who was a nun? Awesome

I’m near the end of my law studies and, being unmarried, was wondering whether such a profession could be compatible with religious life, should I be called to that. Sounds like there’s hope for me!

 

[GemmaRose]

Part 2 …

The title of this thread asks “Are girls not important?” My reply is, of course they are important, they are as important as boys.” Then this begs the question, “They why aren’t girls important enough to serve at the altar?”

The real questions should be:

“Why does the Church not recognize that both male and female were made in the image and likeness of God?”

“Why have women been treated as second class citizens for 2,000 years?”

“Why does the Church not recognize that it arose out of a male-dominated patriarchal society [not referring here to any actions of the Lord Jesus Himself] and take steps to correct such injustices which still exist today?”

“Why does the Church pick and choose the words of Jesus which favor men and totally ignore those that favor women?”

---

*“Dear God, do You know the greatest grief one of Your creatures can bear? It is the thought that she can never love You enough. ” *- St. Gemma Galgani

 

[Seminarian_X]

Children should not be used as political footballs. The Holy Mass is not the place to push agendas of one type or another.

The best thing is to forbid anyone of either sex or age to serve at the altar. That’s going to be my pastoral perogative.

 

[Brendan]

The real questions should be:

“Why does the Church not recognize that both male and female were made in the image and likeness of God?”

Are only priests made in the image and likeness of God? Do you believe that the only way one can be considered to be made in the image of God is to be able to be a priest?

“Why have women been treated as second class citizens for 2,000 years?”

Mary has been Queen of Heaven for the Last 2000 years, do you think the Church considers her to be 'second class". The majority of Saints are women, which is the higher vocation, to be a priest or a Saint?

"Why does the Church not recognize that it arose out of a male-dominated patriarchal society

Because it did not.

and take steps to correct such injustices which still exist today?"

No injustice exists. No one, male or female, has a right to be Ordained to Holy Orders. Therefore, there can be no unjust denial of rights where no right exists.

“Why does the Church pick and choose the words of Jesus which favor men and totally ignore those that favor women?”

It doesn’t. The Church faithfully keeps all that Jesus taught, but written in Scripture and passed on orally to the Apostles.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Well, remember that only an ordained minister (deacon, priest or bishop) can proclaim the Gospel. No layperson has a right to that. Vatican II overall worked in terms of making the Mass more participatory. The word Liturgy means “work of the people.” There really is nothing anymore preventing lay people from reading the 1st and 2nd readings, or the psalm (or cantors from singing the psalms).

Vatican II wanted to foster full participation - which had nothing to do with divvying up roles so more people would be “busy” at any given time. Proclaiming the readings remains the prerogative of the (instituted) lector, so if one is present, that prevents Joe Schmoe from reading. The next logical step, though, is that sense every cleric is already and instituted lector, we should be consistent in reserving that duty to the lectors that are present.

At any rate, the real reason I wanted to respond is to correct the horribly unfortunate translation of liturgy as “work of the people.” It is actually “the public work.” Now, does the department of public works rely on community involvement, or does it typically carry out its works on behalf of the people? Liturgy is not about what everybody does, it is about what gets done for everybody by Christ.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

“Why does the Church not recognize that both male and female were made in the image and likeness of God?”

Of course it does. This is an old problem with language in general which has only really been acted upon in this century, though it has been brought up before. The New Testament was written in Greek. The gender neutral term for “humanity” is “anthropos” in Greek, which is also the word for “man” meaning a male. The term “Man” in English has always referred to both men and women. Overall I object to the trend of gender-neutralizing terms, that years ago almost conquered the “Our Father” with “Our Parent who art in Heaven,” but humanity does better describe our race, and the practice of using “Men” to describe humanity is mostly extinct (at least in English).

“Why have women been treated as second class citizens for 2,000 years?”

Well, there you have hit upon something. But why bring this up as if this is a new issue? It is an historical issue that women have been subjegated (and still are in the Middle East. I once had a Pakistani student who told us that she was raised in household where she was told from birth that she did not belong to her parents, but to her future husband. She actually had to get on her hands and knees to take off his shoes when he came home from work. Still does). There have been great strides taken in the West to retify this, but there are still glass ceilings for women’s wages, etc. This is a bigger issue than can be adequately discussed in a forum. Colleges offer courses.

In the Old Testament the menstral cycle made women “unclean.” I believe that was a factor. Also, the belief that men’s testicles were the source of life, and that men impregnated women with their seed. It was only in the 1800’s that it was learned that women have ovums and participate in procreation rather than wombs being seen as “seed beds.” These are just considerations I’m offering.

“Why does the Church not recognize that it arose out of a male-dominated patriarchal society [not referring here to any actions of the Lord Jesus Himself] and take steps to correct such injustices which still exist today?”

It does. There are earlier posts on this thread, made by women, that address this issue. What specific injustices are you referring to? If you are suggesting that a male priesthood is an injustice that needs addressing, then you should say. You would get a flood of responses.

"Why does the Church pick and choose the words of Jesus which favor men and totally ignore those that favor women?

It doesn’t. If you want this claim to fly, you had best cite some examples. I, for one, don’t know what you mean. What words of Jesus “favor men”? For that matter, what words of Jesus “favor women”? Jesus didn’t play gender politics like we do.

I hope I don’t sound insensitive. Or crazy. To maintain fidelity to the post that began this thread, girls are important. I posted earlier in this thread about vocations. Did you read mine? The bigger question implied by this thread is what vocations are there for women? Lots of men and women have been responding.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

At any rate, the real reason I wanted to respond is to correct the horribly unfortunate translation of liturgy as “work of the people.” It is actually “the public work.” Now, does the department of public works rely on community involvement, or does it typically carry out its works on behalf of the people? Liturgy is not about what everybody does, it is about what gets done for everybody by Christ.

“horribly unfortunate”? I think you’re splitting hairs.

CCC 1069
The word “liturgy” originally meant a “public work” or a “service in the name of/on behalf of the people.” In Christian tradition it means the participation of the People of God in “the work of God.”…

Forgive me for paraphrasing. And of course nobody just waltzes up out of the pews and reads the readings. I’m keeping my Catechism by the computer at all times from now on. Sheesh.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

“horribly unfortunate”? I think you’re splitting hairs.

CCC 1069
The word “liturgy” originally meant a “public work” or a “service in the name of/on behalf of the people.” In Christian tradition it means the participation of the People of God in “the work of God.”…

Forgive me for paraphrasing. And of course nobody just waltzes up out of the pews and reads the readings. I’m keeping my Catechism by the computer at all times from now on. Sheesh.

It has been horribly unfortunate because it is the canard that gets trotted out by oh-so-many liturgical innovationists who want to find more ways to get people busy during Mass. That mistranslation has been a driving force behind lots of misguided initiatives for “participation.” The Catechism gets it right, they lead out with the proper translation, and then situate our participation within the context of God’s action. I think that corresponds perfectly to what I said. I didn’t have any big problem with what you said, for the most part, except for the fact that it contained the root of all liturgico-participatory evils. I try to correct that translation whenever I encounter it.

 

[mark_a]

hi, I don’t mean to start a confrontation - this is just my upbringing in the lutheran church that comes out of me sometimes. I didn’t want to sound bad in the thread below about alter girls since the woman’s daugher would be reading the responses.

But, women can’t be priests (I can see this), and they can’t be deacons (can sort of see this), but why can’t they be alter girls? I mean, do we not want girls to participate in mass? They’re just to sit there and look pretty?

IMO, catholacism is shunning girls who may develop a more fuller and rich relationship with Christ but didn’t because they were “left out” and weren’t as important as the boys in their parishes. Can’t even be alter girls?

I just don’t get it. And is there a real reason or is it just because they say it’s that way and because (some) men don’t like it?

In Catholic theology, besides Jesus, history’s most important human being is a Woman.

 

[GemmaRose]

In answer to Nom the Wise’s questions, I will quote my own post in successive posts.
Part 1:

The real questions should be:

“Why does the Church not recognize that both male and female were made in the image and likeness of God?”

Nom the Wise’s comment:

Of course it does. This is an old problem with language in general which has only really been acted upon in this century, though it has been brought up before. The New Testament was written in Greek. The gender neutral term for “humanity” is “anthropos” in Greek, which is also the word for “man” meaning a male. The term “Man” in English has always referred to both men and women. Overall I object to the trend of gender-neutralizing terms, that years ago almost conquered the “Our Father” with “Our Parent who art in Heaven,” but humanity does better describe our race, and the practice of using “Men” to describe humanity is mostly extinct (at least in English).

If the Church does recognize it, it has a really odd way of showing it, i.e. by not showing it at all.

If the Church truly believed that women were made in the image and likeness of God, and if Jesus is God, then a woman could just as well be a priest as a man. Using the Creed as an example, as it is now, the Church still refuses to change one little word in the Creed: “… for us men and for our salvation…” !

Turn it around… how would a man feel if, every Sunday, he had to pray: “… for us women and our salvation…” For any man reading this post, repeat that phrase a few times… “for us women and our salvation,” and then tell me how it makes you feel inside.

I’m not advocating changing pronouns which refer to God. I don’t even mind the “man” or “men” in some readings which just seem to lose something when you play around with the words. (The first which comes to mind is: “What is man that You should be mindful of him? The son of man that You should care for him?”)

However, I do not want to be referred to as a man.

I don’t want to pray a prayer that says Jesus came for all men because that is not true. He came for all people, male and female.

Language changes. Language evolves. One hundred years ago, if a little boy was born and was named Richard, it was not uncommon at all to call him "Dk" as a nickname. How many little boys today who are named Richard are nicknamed “Dk” ??

How about the word “gay”? I’m old enough to remember when it meant “happy.” If you are happy right now in 2008, would you say you are gay?

Many women have been saying for years now that references to “man” or “men” to indicate all of humanity is offensive to them. Why does the Church turn a deaf ear? (I’m not even saying that this is a worldwide problem, because I don’t know if it is in other countries, other languages.) Women, like myself, who find the term offensive don’t want to change the meaning of the Creed. We are just saying that in our language today, and in our culture, this offends us.

If the Church cared, or recognized us as equal in the eyes of God, they would not ignore us.

---

*“Dear God, do You know the greatest grief one of Your creatures can bear? It is the thought that she can never love You enough. ” *- St. Gemma Galgani

 

[GemmaRose]

In answer to Nom the Wise’s questions, I will quote my own post in successive posts.

Part 2:

“Why have women been treated as second class citizens for 2,000 years?”

Nom the Wise’s comment:

Well, there you have hit upon something. But why bring this up as if this is a new issue? It is an historical issue that women have been subjegated (and still are in the Middle East. I once had a Pakistani student who told us that she was raised in household where she was told from birth that she did not belong to her parents, but to her future husband. She actually had to get on her hands and knees to take off his shoes when he came home from work. Still does). There have been great strides taken in the West to retify this, but there are still glass ceilings for women’s wages, etc. This is a bigger issue than can be adequately discussed in a forum. Colleges offer courses.

I don’t have to go into details of the past 2,000 years, but in the earliest days of the Church, in the culture into which the Church was born, women were little more than possessions of their husbands. Throughout the ages, women have been little more than chattel. In many countries, that is still true.

How many centuries did it take for the Church to allow women to start an active religious order rather than a cloistered one?

The Church might speak about injustices to women, but it’s too little, too late… and what does it actually do?

As long as the Church dragged its feet on the sexual abuse issue, even longer has it dragged its feet on women’s issues.

(Oh, right, I forgot… I have dignity because I am capable of bearing children… so my dignity is linked to my being a brood mare. Wow.)

---

*“Dear God, do You know the greatest grief one of Your creatures can bear? It is the thought that she can never love You enough. ” *- St. Gemma Galgani

 

[GemmaRose]

In answer to Nom the Wise’s questions, I will quote my own post in successive posts.

Part 3:

“Why does the Church not recognize that it arose out of a male-dominated patriarchal society [not referring here to any actions of the Lord Jesus Himself] and take steps to correct such injustices which still exist today?”

Nom the Wise’s comment:

It does. There are earlier posts on this thread, made by women, that address this issue. What specific injustices are you referring to? If you are suggesting that a male priesthood is an injustice that needs addressing, then you should say. You would get a flood of responses.

I consider it an injustice that a man can receive seven Sacraments and a women can only receive six. (I will cover this more extensively in the next post.)

I consider it an injustice that the only time I can be officially welcomed in the sanctuary is when I have a cleaning rag or a mop in my hand. Oh, sure, I can “read,” but I can’t “officially” be a Lector. Why? Because I don’t have a penis. Funny thing is… I read with my eyes and the Word comes from my mouth… my genitals have never been involved.

And let’s be real and admit it - female altar servers are barely tolerated. (Were they finally allowed so the Church could say that they do address the issue of women’s equality?)

Think of it in secular terms, in a corporation (and I know it’s not an ideal analogy because the Church is not a corporation) - what would happen if a women was called in to the CEO’s office and told: “Congratulations Ms. Smith. We’re going to make you a Vice-President. Oh, we can’t call you a Vice-President, because you’re a woman. And you can’t have a Vice-President’s office, you’ll have to remain in your cubby… because you’re a woman. And unfortunately, you can’t be paid a Vice-President’s salary because you are a woman. But you can handle a Vice-President’s workload.”

This is an example of how the Church continues injustices by acting as a male-dominated patriarchal entity.

---

*“Dear God, do You know the greatest grief one of Your creatures can bear? It is the thought that she can never love You enough. ” *- St. Gemma Galgani

 

[GemmaRose]

In answer to Nom the Wise’s questions, I will quote my own post in successive posts.

Part 4:

“Why does the Church pick and choose the words of Jesus which favor men and totally ignore those that favor women?”

Nom the Wise’s comment:

It doesn’t. If you want this claim to fly, you had best cite some examples. I, for one, don’t know what you mean. What words of Jesus “favor men”? For that matter, what words of Jesus “favor women”? Jesus didn’t play gender politics like we do.

As I re-read my own question, I realize that it is not worded well. Let me explain what I meant with two examples:

1. The first person to whom Jesus revealed Himself to be the Messiah was a woman (the woman at the well). This is important because He certainly knew that she would run back into town to spread the incredible news that the Messiah had come. He chose the Samaritan woman to spread the Good News.

Later, other women were sent to bring the Gospel message (Matthew 28):

1 After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, approached, rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. 3 His appearance was like lightning and his clothing was white as snow. 4 The guards were shaken with fear of him and became like dead men. 5 Then the angel said to the women in reply, “Do not be afraid! I know that you are seeking Jesus the crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has been raised just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ Behold, I have told you.” 8 Then they went away quickly from the tomb, fearful yet overjoyed, and ran to announce this to his disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them on their way and greeted them. They approached, embraced his feet, and did him homage. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”

John 20:

11 But Mary stayed outside the tomb weeping. And as she wept, she bent over into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white sitting there, one at the head and one at the feet where the body of Jesus had been. 13 And they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken my Lord, and I don’t know where they laid him.” 14 When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus there, but did not know it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” She thought it was the gardener and said to him, “Sir, if you carried him away, tell me where you laid him, and I will take him.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni,” which means Teacher. 17 Jesus said to her, “Stop holding on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” 18 Mary of Magdala went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and what he told her.

Although the accounts of that first Easter morning vary in each Gospel, I believe it can safely be said that the first human beings to whom Jesus revealed Himself as Messiah and as Risen, were women.

He told them to go tell what they had seen and heard.

Basically, He commissioned them to spread the Gospel.

However, 2,000 years later, I am not allowed to preach, nor even to read a Gospel at Mass because (as I said in my earlier post) I don’t have a penis - another instance in which that specific body part has no function.

The Church uses the argument that women can’t be priests because they were not at the Last Supper. Well, that argument should work both ways.

If Jesus had wanted to, He would have told a man that He was the Messiah and expected him to spread the word. He did not.

If He had wanted, men would have been at the tomb that first Easter morning and He would have sent them to spread the Good News. This is not what Jesus did.

In both cases, He chose a woman.

Therefore, I submit that I have a valid argument supporting the female diaconate, the requirements, according to St. Paul, being:

"Deacons must be dignified, not deceitful, not addicted to drink, not greedy for sordid gain, holding fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. Moreover, they should be tested first; then, if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons… Deacons may be married only once and must manage their children and house holds well. Thus those who serve well as deacons gain good standing and much confidence in their faith in Christ Jesus. (1 Tim 3:8-13)

RIGHT[/RIGHT]

 

[GemmaRose]

And the current requirements being:

Requirements for potential candidates
The requirements for the Program of Formation for Permanent Deacons are:
• You are 32 years of age or older at this time.
• You were baptized Catholic or have been received into the Church more than five years ago, and you continue to participate in the sacramental life of the Church.
• If you are married, your marriage is recognized in the Catholic Church.
• If you are married, your wife supports your vocation as a deacon.
• You are involved in your parish: by participating actively at liturgy, in parish-related groups, and/or by serving the poor.
• You are in good health.
• You have the ability to study at the Master’s degree level and are willing to participate in a program of formation. (An undergraduate degree is not necessarily required.)

You will note that there is no reference to genital “equipment” in either quote; as to the reference to “your wife,” since I am not married, any reference to a spouse is not applicable.

I don’t expect that the early Church would have ordained deaconesses, especially with St. Paul instructing that women should keep their heads covered and their mouths shut! But you would think that after 2,000 years, the Church would consider, and follow, the words and actions of Jesus in all things, and not “pick and choose” who can proclaim the Gospel.

1. As I referred to in my previous post (Part 3), currently, there are only six possible Sacraments for women, and seven for men, and we are taught that Christ instituted the Sacraments. Okay, so far, I agree.

However, if you look in the Gospels for the institution of the Sacraments, you probably would never find them if you were looking to compare Jesus’ words with how a Sacrament is done today. A great example are His words, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven…” If someone who knew absolutely nothing about Catholicism happened to tag along with a friend to Confession (not to the actual Confession itself) and then went home and tried to find in the Bible where Jesus said to go into a little box etc., they would never find it. Even the Eucharist… if that same person went to a Mass and then tried to find a Mass in the Bible, they would be very confused. We, of course, with our faith in tradition and the Magisterium, understand the institution of the Sacraments.

Or, the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick – where is that in Jesus’ words?

Now, I don’t disagree with the Council of Trent over the seven Sacraments that they did define. However, I cannot help but be confused about the following words of our Lord and why this was not chosen as a Sacrament:

9 “I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery." 10 [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. 12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." (Matthew 19)

A woman can become a nun, spend her entire adult life in a convent, and her profession of vows - her acceptance of Jesus’ words about renouncing marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven - is not a Sacrament. Why?

A woman can remain in the world to sanctify it from within (cf. Vita Consecrata) and profess her vows in a Secular Institute or as a Consecrated Virgin, again following Jesus’ words and His call to renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom, and this is not a Sacrament. Why?

I understand that it was only in the 12th century that the number of sacraments was firmly established as seven and that before then, some counted fewer and some counted more. Those who counted more sometimes included monastic vows. The uncertainty as to which holy rites counted as sacraments derived from uncertainty as to the definition of a sacrament. The definition settled on by St. Thomas and others was expressed in the Baltimore Catechism as follows: A sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.

I can’t see how the consecrated life was not instituted by Christ in view of the Matthew 19 reading above. Consecration occurs by an outward sign, i.e. the taking of the vows; and the Church admits that special graces are conferred upon the consecrated person in the taking of the vows, but then says that consecration is not a Sacrament because the grace conferred is actual grace, not sanctifying grace because… consecration is not a Sacrament! Am I the only one who thinks this is convoluted logic?

I know that the number (7) of Sacraments had been more or less accepted for centuries, by both the Eastern and Western Churches, before the Council of Trent solemnly defined them. However, no one has ever been able to give me a credible answer as to why consecration was not then and is not now a Sacrament (and believe me, I have read a lot of things and asked a lot of priests).

Can you understand my question now (poorly worded as it was)?

---

*“Dear God, do You know the greatest grief one of Your creatures can bear? It is the thought that she can never love You enough. ” *- St. Gemma Galgani

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

It’s going to take me some time, but I plan to reply to you at length today.

You bring up excellent points. I want to enter a conversation with you (though others may be more suited to the task) but as it was I, Nom the Wise (a literary reference–wise being no reflection on me whatsoever) that you have responded to, I will not fail to repy, and I will not disagree with you on all of your points.