Best Response To Give Feminst On No Women Priest

[VanitasVanitatum]

Look at what happened to Joan of Arc!

There was political motivation.

 

[Magnanimity]

Simple question, prior to modern times, how many authors of that history were women?
[…]
We are talking about Church theology, which is deeply and inextricably immeshed in European history.

Ok, if what we’re talking about is church theology and we’re wondering how many “authors” of that history were women, I guess we’d start with the Blessed Mother, continue on through the women who found the empty tomb, and on and on it goes through the centuries.

Looking at recent history, who would folks (inside or outside of the church) say is the most influential and important Catholic of the 20th century? Some would say Pope John Paul II. But everyone would say Mother Theresa. Or take the 19th century, who would it be? Some would say John Henry Newman. Everyone would say St Therese (or Bernadette, or both women).

I listed other female saints above who have loomed large in church history. I wonder if you could name, from memory, all the popes alive during their ministries. I couldn’t-not even close. And I think this is Fr Barron’s point. Real power and influence in the church is not found in the clergy. It’s found in the saints. I think this is not only true but it is obviously so.

So, if I’ve understood your question correctly, women and men saints have absolutely and hands-down written the history of the church.

You and I need to live in the world we live in and address that inequality,

Agreed, and equality of opportunities for women has come incredibly far in the wealthy western nations. But it needs to be a global phenomenon. And it isn’t yet.

My only quibble with you was what seemed to be a presentation of human history that implied that women have been oppressed by men basically from the beginning of time, up until the 20th century. We all know that people have behaved badly at many points throughout history. But, I’ve never seen a lot of evidence for that vision of the history of women as ever-oppressed.

 

[stpurl]

No Authority equals "No authority’.

Name one church dogma/doctrine that was taught as true at one point, and then ‘repudiated’ at another.

Outside the Church no salvation? Still taught. We understand the Church as encompassing ‘more’ than those who are baptized Catholics. . .
Just as we understand now that life begins at conception, not quickening.

Those doctrines haven’t changed.

Confecting the Eucharist with juice and gluten-free rice cakes? Can’t be done.
Marrying two men to each other? Can’t be done.

The Church has no authority to change the matter of the Eucharist.
The Church has no authority to change who can ‘marry’.
And the Church has no authority to change who can be a priest.

Despite the fact that many shrill voices call for changing any or all of the above, it can’t be done.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Fets:

The Church right now is actually pretty female dominated, believe it or not. Other than priests, most parishes are run by women. In fact, it’s actually a problem getting men involved in parishes because so many of them have such a feminine culture. There are somewhere between 12 and 10,000 Fr. Z posts on this subject.
Click on a random parish and go under ‘staff’ you should find a priest and the lay positions filled by about 90% women.

I tend to think this is the underlying reason why God continues to facilitate the all-male priesthood. As PJH and some others said, I don’t find any of the reasons given by the Church to be particularly convincing in this day and age. However, reserving the priesthood for males encourages male engagement with the Church which seems to be very sorely needed.

People have joked before about the online prayer groups with military themes trying to appeal to men to be prayer warriors. You join the group and soon find that 80 to 90 percent of the “prayer warriors” are middle-aged to elderly ladies.

While I do see men at daily Mass, acting as catechists etc they are often equalled by or slightly outnumbered by women. When it comes to any optional prayer activity that isn’t a strict males-only group, it’s always a large number of women and a little handful of men. I have also seen a number of men who think that going to church is for women, and even that men who go to church are less “manly” in some way. If the priesthood starts admitting women as well, that’s going to lose even more male engagement.

Penny’s metaphor about the man who gets to be the chef is a bit politically incorrect in this day and age, but it’s also very true.

This to me is the real underlying reason why God is keeping the priesthood male right now . Because the men need to stay in the church, and their connection with it in general is more tenuous than the women’s connection with it in general.

I agree with this as speculation on why God chose the all male priesthood. As a lay man who is regularly “out the front” in any ministry, I do feel that my masculinity is suspect - from women as much as men. And I don’t care

The other reason I would suggest from observation of male and female nature, especially within the church itself, and as one of the men who do turn up, participate, contribute etc., is that women are much more mindful of power for its own sake. Every little interaction becomes a variation of “What gives you the right to say that?”, “You are oppressing me, so I’m just gonna say No” or “I’ve got the power, and don’t care what you think”. Then “resolving” issues just beomes a matter of forming alliances (“cliques”) and a scorched earth policy. Men have these reactions too, but not on the same scale. Nowhere near it, in fact - we have learned how to get things done, despite bad feelings and rivalries.

 

[Edmundus1581]

(part 2)

My observation of what’s happened to the Protestant churches after allowing women’s ordination only confirms this. They’ve now gone full feminist with “women’s issues”, and other social justice issues (climate, refugees, etc). quickly becoming the main business of the church - but first and foremost, it’s always Women’s Issues. I haven’t heard a word about abortion or divorce for years, apart from affirming a woman’s right to a divorce.

After they got women priests they were agitating for women bishops, and got them. If they had a “pope” then the next item on the agenda would be to have a female pope, just for the sake of it. After promising that dissenters from women’s ordination would have an equal place in the church, they’ve now said that such would not be admitted to the priesthood.

Every Anglican service or public announcement I’ve seen on TV looks utterly female dominated. Even if it’s a man speaking, he’s a wimp, looking over his shoulder for “What will the women think?”. The Catholic clergy are almost as bad, but have more exceptions to the rule…and after the women have brought down the Anglicans, the Catholic church will still be around to learn from their folly.

Well, that’s my observation from my seeing my friends in the Anglican clergy and snippets of news reports. For some time I’ve been thinking of raising the question here in CAF, just to get the first hand reports from those are closer to it.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Whatever the reasons may be, it is however an unchangeable teaching of the church, as I’m sure has been presented many times here in CAF.

I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Pope John Paul II,ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS, 1994

And if that’s “sexist” then Jesus is sexist.

 

[CatholicLeanne]

In addition to all the other answers I’ve seen here, I would also add that it’s for the same reason why women aren’t supposed to lead in the home. That’s the man’s job, plain and simple. Feminism might tell the world that men and women are the same, but they’re not. Men have their place and women have ours; and it’s not as Church leaders.

 

[PJH_74]

I guess we’d start with the Blessed Mother, continue on through the women who found the empty tomb, and on and on it goes through the centuries.

But this is my point, who has the power and/or the pen that writes history decides how things are remembered. There is no Gospel attributed a woman and certainly not the writings of Paul. Being spoken for, even glowingly, is not the same as speaking for yourself. Mother Teresa was indeed famous and well loved, but her life fit an image of womanhood that was not challenging to society.

As for understanding what the history of equality is, just look up what a woman was allowed or not allowed to do legally. You also must understand a lot of women don’t feel safe talking about such things.

 

[Magnanimity]

Name one church dogma/doctrine that was taught as true at one point, and then ‘repudiated’ at another.

One would not have to show that. All that one would need to show is an expansion of a viewpoint beyond what was originally taught. As it turns out, you’ve brought up a perfect example—no salvation outside the church. Lumen Gentium 16 (as an example) would not have been held by many of the church’s most prominent Fathers. For example, St Augustine for sure did not believe that non-Christians following the “dictates of their consciences” and those who “strive to live a good life” could be saved. But Vat 2 taught just that very point.

As John Henry Newman pointed out, the development of doctrine is a real thing. It happens. The church is not statically committed to the church of the 1st century.

Those doctrines haven’t changed.

You actually state the way in which they have changed! You point out the broadening and development of those very doctrines. That ain’t a repudiation, but it is development.

So hw would women clergy be a repudiation? It seems it could just as easily be argued as a development or expansion.

 

[stpurl]

How would they be an expansion? Men are men, and women are women.

The doctrines I gave above have NOT changed.

Outside the Church no salvation did NOT change into "Outside the church IS salvation.

And we did not change confecting the Eucharist to using grape juice and rice cakes, did we?

Or allowing two men to marry?

Sacraments ‘matter’ (and require valid matter).

If the Church 'has no authority to ordain women", how could doctrine ‘develop’ into ordaining women? You’d be saying, “The Church has no authority to do this, but it’s going to do it anyway!”

 

[Magnanimity]

But this is my point, who has the power and/or the pen that writes history decides how things are remembered.
[…]
There is no Gospel attributed a woman

Well, I’ll grant that the church has been slow on this, but there are four female “doctors of the church.” Albeit, they were declared as such much later than males. So, I’ll grant you the point. Still, as Fr Barron says, there’s just no denying that saints are the “greats” of the church, not priests or bishops (unless they are themselves saints). That’s the nature of our church, and it’s fantastic, IMO.

Also, ours is not a “religion of the book” like Islam (or Protestantism). Christ is who is the Word of God. The Bible, if anything, is a revealing of the Revelation—it points us to God in Christ. That is its function. Saints do the very same—they point us to God in Christ.

Mother Teresa was indeed famous and well loved, but her life fit an image of womanhood that was not challenging to society.

She took care of the lowest castes in India—the “untouchables.” She touched them, took care of them, loved them. Those very acts could not have been any more challenging and counter-cultural in India.

As for understanding what the history of equality is, just look up what a woman was allowed or not allowed to do legally.

I understand. And I’m with you on this. It doesn’t follow, however, that men over the ages have generally done anything other than love, provide for and respect the women of their cultures.

 

[Magnanimity]

The doctrines I gave above have NOT changed.

Outside the Church no salvation did NOT change into "Outside the church IS salvation.

That is precisely the development of the teaching in LG 16. One can be “outside the church” (eg, a Muslim) and still saved. That is not what would have been meant by St Augustine. Development. Change. It happened. You yourself actually said “We understand the Church as encompassing ‘more’ than those who are baptized Catholics. . .” The understanding of what that phrase meant did expand, which is a change. It is a development. It’s useless to try to deny this. You’re arguing against history if you do try.

If the Church 'has no authority to ordain women", how could doctrine ‘develop’ into ordaining women?

It couldn’t. But that’s question-begging—I haven’t granted the point that the church has no such authority. You’ve merely stated this instead of arguing for why we must believe it.

You try to state that the doctrines of the church do not change, then you bring up illustrations of change—“no salvation outside the church.”

Sacraments ‘matter’ (and require valid matter).

The material difference between males and females is the reason for the exclusivity of males in the priesthood? I’ve never heard that. That’s an interesting claim.

 

[stpurl]

Wait, "you haven’t granted the point that the Church has no such authority? **You? **

So the Church states this throughout the Magesterium, directly from a sainted Pope only 25 years ago, corroborated by the next Pope and by the current Pope as well, but you haven’t granted the point.

If you’re going to be picking and choosing what you ‘grant’ to the Church as authority, I believe we have nothing further to say. It would be like me trying to talk to you about the force of gravity and you saying that while you understand it might affect other humans, you haven’t decided to grant it authority over you.

 

[Fets]

I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with most of your post. Priests doesn’t equal male engagement in parishes. The average priest serves 2,000 Catholics. So, the all-male priesthood doesn’t make a dent one way or the other. If it was all women, it would still be 1/2000 people.

I also think the all-male priesthood doesn’t have much to do with our particular time. It trandscends time. To be frank, it was equally legitimate for 1,000 years of history where women’s roles were very different than today.

Here’s a politically incorrect statement I’ve heard (only because it relies on distinct gender roles). But I’ve heard that “women preserve culture, men go out and change it”. Those are innate gender characteristics. And there’s nothing wrong with it. But, it is perhaps a huge explanation for why our culture is so bad. Why the world has become so secular. Men have left the Church more so than women.

This is another topic, but there are studies which show children are much more likely to go to Mass as adults if their father goes to Church. If just the mother goes, the kids are much less likely to go to Church.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with most of your post. Priests doesn’t equal male engagement in parishes. The average priest serves 2,000 Catholics. So, the all-male priesthood doesn’t make a dent one way or the other. If it was all women, it would still be 1/2000 people.

I also think the all-male priesthood doesn’t have much to do with our particular time. It trandscends time. To be frank, it was equally legitimate for 1,000 years of history where women’s roles were very different than today.

Here’s a politically incorrect statement I’ve heard (only because it relies on distinct gender roles). But I’ve heard that “women preserve culture, men go out and change it”. Those are innate gender characteristics. And there’s nothing wrong with it. But, it is perhaps a huge explanation for why our culture is so bad. Why the world has become so secular. Men have left the Church more so than women.

This is another topic, but there are studies which show children are much more likely to go to Mass as adults if their father goes to Church. If just the mother goes, the kids are much less likely to go to Church.

I “agreed” with @tis_bearself’s post in the general sense that an all male priesthood is a great role model for men, and more likely to keep them in the church. For whatever reason, Catholic devotion seems to be lower in men and than in women. It probably always has been and always will be. But when men see feminised men or women out the front, then they’ll disengage even more. (They get enough of it at home)

However, of course this is just speculation as to “why”, without claiming it as revelation or that the teaching is just for this time. Of course, the teaching is for all cultures and times.

Here’s a politically incorrect statement I’ve heard (only because it relies on distinct gender roles). But I’ve heard that “women preserve culture, men go out and change it”.

Great point, thanks! It’s easy to forget that the Church has not only to do good and fight for “justice”, etc, but is tasked with evangelising the world and changing culture. (Almost) every single great advance and exploration has been made by men. Men who suffer great hardship, and risk life and reputation. Strong, independent men who can command others, who need minimal support, and who won’t need rescue if they end up in jail or sick. (Said with every respect for woman’s frailty and need for protection,but that’s the way things are). A female dominated church will just turn in on itself and eventually implode. It’s already happening with the Protestants. .

 

[Fets]

Well, I don’t know if the Church has always had more women lay faithful or not. I think I’ve read anecdotally in ages past where the wife is the ‘elderly religious lady’ that we still have today.

Idk. I’d love to read some history about how families and communities lived back then. What they looked like. It’s not that I’m harking back to the middle ages or whatever. But, I think the Church has never looked more threatened going forward than it has in a long time. Maybe it’s been a slow downward spiral since the French Revolution. Idk.

A comment directly on topic: I don’t think women priests or married priests is the answer to the vocation crisis. I think the vocation crisis is due to the breakdown of the family. And people lead secular lives. They watch TV and don’t go to Mass on Sunday. So, in that context, I fully believe that huge numbers of men over the past 50 years have simply failed to discern their vocation. Perhaps they weren’t trying to discern. Or they came from a broken family, fell into addiction or what have you. Many Catholics don’t even know to discern. The Church is doing a lot better on this topic now. If it ever seems like they preach on it TOO often, it’s probably because the priests today are trying to make up for 30-40 years of failure on it. Where men didn’t discern.

 

[PJH_74]

Those very acts could not have been any more challenging and counter-cultural in India.

I’m not taking from her, literally, saintly life. Women taking care of the poor and sick is just not challenging to traditional views of women’s roles.

It doesn’t follow, however, that men over the ages have generally done anything other than love, provide for and respect the women of their cultures.

I’m not saying that a good chunk of men have not loved their spouses. But the question is that is it full love to entitle yourself to define what that love is? Many of these laws had basis in that a woman belongs at home or is too delicate for certain things. That was set by men and especially non-minority men who’ve the least experience dealing with discriminatory laws. This is not meant to be a swipe at such men, but they have the least experience encountering such things.

 

[HeDa]

I am going to give you some suggestion for your daughter to learn more about some of the strong and faithful women in the history of the Church. These are just a few that popped into my mind. There are also movies about some of the saints.

The lives of saints and martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas who lived during the early 3rd century. St Perpetua wrote a diary. Read it.

St Helena, mother of the emperor Constantine (allowed Christianity to exist in the roman empire), who lived during the 4th century.

Clare of Assisi

St Bridget (Birgitta) of Sweden born of royal family, mother of 8, went to pilgrimages to the Holy land, Rome etc and lived during the 14th century.

Saint Catherine of Siena

Sts Teresa of Calcutta and Edith Stein from last century.

Ending with the Pope John Paul II document Mulieris Dignitatem on the dignity and vocation of women. http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...f_jp-ii_apl_19880815_mulieris-dignitatem.html

 

[Magnanimity]

you haven’t granted the point that the Church has no such authority? **You? **

That’s right. You made a claim—that the church has no such authority to begin ordaining women. You apparently believe, for whatever reasons, that this is self-evidently true. But you have not presented to the rest of us (including me) what those reasons are. What makes you think that the church has no such authority? What are the reasons? Without supplying reasons, you’ve merely made an assertion, which could be true or false (like all assertions).

I’m glad recent popes have spoken out on this issue. But, as I said above, the reasons normally given for continuing the all-male priesthood are accidental (as in the Aristotelian-Thomistic view of “accidents”). I haven’t heard essential reasons. There may be such reasons. I simply haven’t heard them.

Christ was male, priest stands in persona Christi, Christ only chose males as his disciples…all of these are accidental reasons. As in, the particular place and time-period of Christ’s incarnation was a patriarchal society. Had it been a more egalitarian society, perhaps males and females would have been among the original 12 disciples. See where this is headed…?

If you’re going to be picking and choosing what you ‘grant’ to the Church as authority,

This is just you continuing to not make an argument for your position. You believe that recent popes have spoken, the matter is settled. Ok, good for you! Go your merry way, firm in your beliefs. Makes no difference to me what “stpurl,” in particular, believes about this issue. But for some of us, we still have questions and consider the matter to be open to further questioning.

Peace be with you.

 

[lilypadrees]

What you found in your search results should be good enough for your daughter.