"Catholicism Undervalues Women"

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sexism is to deny someone a right based on their gender.

There is **no **right to be ordained a priest.

ICXC. NIKA
 
Cake_or_Death said:
I can’t say what yours is, but do you think it would be fair that a Doctor of Biblical studies who’s spent the best part of fifty-three years mastering Aramaic, Koine Greek, Hebrew and the scriptures itself should be “corrected” by some pimply little boy who can’t even quote the scripture? I certainly don’t, and I certainly set him straight when he tries to correct my readings of it, sadly due to her vows she must meekly nod and agree; even if she knows he is mistaken, even when what he says goes against the Catholic view (unless it’s something huge like “SSM is ok”) she is obliged to silence because he is above her. To say this isn’t encouraged simply isn’t true, I mean to quote St. Catherine of Sienna…
Click to expand...
Choosing humility over pride is not an easy thing to do, and it sounds like your aunt has chosen the greater of the two. But, she does choose this, she isn’t forced to stay quiet. Since you quoted St. Catherine, I assume you know how she convinced Pope Gregory XI to move back to Rome. This shows that correcting someone is not rebelling against them or the Church.
Your aunt probably believes that her silence will better serve Christs plans than arguing with, and perhaps humiliating, her nephew. You should be very proud of her.
 
Cake_or_Death said:
I fear I must disagree,
The Catholic Church’s teaching on the role of women fits both of these categories, no matter how talented a woman might be in teaching the faith no however knowledgeable she might be of canon law or scripture she can never be a leader of Christendom. Purely because she is female. That fits definition one.

Number two is easier still, the Catholic Church fosters the belief (although perhaps not as much as in previous centuries) with complementarity that women are further from God than men (Man is made in the image of God, but women the glory of man). All too often it is women called to modesty and focusing on parenthood, not men. That fits definition two.

By no uncertain terms is the Catholic Church not sexist.

Because that power is denied to women. Yes, yes…I know, Catholics claim women can’t have that power. I’m not going to make any claims about that. It’s still sexist no matter how we dance around it or if Jesus said so or not. Even if Jesus did say so it doesn’t stop it being sexist.

I can’t say what yours is, but do you think it would be fair that a Doctor of Biblical studies who’s spent the best part of fifty-three years mastering Aramaic, Koine Greek, Hebrew and the scriptures itself should be “corrected” by some pimply little boy who can’t even quote the scripture? I certainly don’t, and I certainly set him straight when he tries to correct my readings of it, sadly due to her vows she must meekly nod and agree; even if she knows he is mistaken, even when what he says goes against the Catholic view (unless it’s something huge like “SSM is ok”) she is obliged to silence because he is above he

To outsiders this is an injustice, and ).
Click to expand...
So if no matter how talented a woman may be then how we have st Theresa of Avila, st Theresa of Lisieux etc. As Doctors of the Church? If your first statement copied above is true then no women could hold the title of Doctor of the Church. The fact that we have women who hold the title of doctors of the church renders your first statement false because you have women in the church that were very talented in the teaching of the faith and whose writings were giving the elevation and recognition they deserve. Second as to your coent of they cannot become leaders, what did Jesus say about if someone wants to become a leader? If you want to be the first place yourself in the last position, because the ones that are the first will be the last and the last ones will be the first. To be a leader in the church you have to free yourself from the me and I want, be humble and place yourself as the last. Many women in the church have done that and they indeed have become leaders. Unfortunately secular mentality of the “me me me” doesn’t understand that. Don’t believe me, again who do you think was more of a leader, mother Theresa or the priest you are talking?

Your second paragraph is entirely wrong and just reinforces that all the sexism claims are based on lack of knowledge. Nowhere and never the church teaches or has taught that modesty is only for women. Where do you get that? Modesty is required for all. Same for parenthood. Where do you get that the church said focusing on parenting is for woman? The church has never taught that. That you don’t know the correct teaching is a different story but that is totally incorrect.

So the church is not sexist. You don’t know what the church teaches and what you believe from the church is sexist but the church in itself.is not sexist.

Then Tue church denies power. Again if you are looking for power you are in the wrong place. The church is not about power quite the opposite. Again the problem is that secular society is obsessed with power and greed and selfishness so when the church comes and say that you have to live your life the opposite way they don’t like it.

Finally are you aware that nuns do an obedience vow. And did you know that priests do make an obedience vow too. Is that priest her confessor or the director of her congregation?

This has notice to do with injustice or sexism, it has to do with ignorance.
 
casslean said:
You’re actually incorrect on both counts.

On the first count, there is a difference between discriminating between individuals on the basis of their gender and distinguishing between individuals on the basis of their gender. Discrimination occurs when gender is immaterial to the task for which two individuals are being assessed, and yet is still used to preclude an individual from taking a role.

If there is a bone fide justification for precluding one gender or another, it isn’t discrimination (and that’s from a legal perspective). In the case of the priesthood, holy orders are a sacrament that is limited to men. That is a bona fide justification for not opening the priesthood to women. Women are not prevented from attaining other high roles in the Church (and in fact have wielded amount of authority) - the nature of the priesthood makes it impossible for a woman to hold THAT position.

Women can still be leaders in theology or canon law or whatever they want (and many are). They just can’t be priests.

On the second count, the argument that the Church perpetuates the notion that women are further from God than men, I would challenge you to provide me with theological evidence of that. God could have sent His only Son to Earth by any means He chose, and He chose to use a woman - a woman that the Catholic Church venerates (and for which it often has to explain such veneration to its Protestant counterparts who don’t hold Mary in the same esteem). Are there individual Catholics who sometimes espouse views contrary to a notion of equality, such as putting higher standards of modesty on women than men? Certainly. But that isn’t the church - it’s people. You have to separate the people from the church, because people are flawed.

I am a young, professional woman who has grown up in a world of so-called “feminist ideals” - I found far more acceptance and admiration for myself as a woman inside the walls of the Catholic Church than I ever did in feminism.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent and succinct explanation. Our culture is so Hell-bent on the falsehoods of equality that it refuses to acknowledge that men and women are different, and that certain roles are intended for me while others are intended for women. Acknowledging that is adhering to reality, which our culture seems incapable of doing at present.
 
The secular lens is this: I see Pope here representing the (incorrectly identified) monolith socio-political structure called “the Catholic Church”. I want some power sharing.

Catholics see the Pope/a priest/bishop as a spiritual servant first, who happens to have some kind of power for the sake of order secondarily.

This is why often when a person with a secularist agenda does ‘get’ what they want in relation to ecclesial authority, they transform the ecclesial structure into a tyranny of their politic. I won’t get into too many specifics, but many “Episcopal Church” is an example among others.

Unfortunately this power-play ends up dismantling the very organization they want restructured, leaving them with no more real power than before their quest; and thus, still unsatisfied, often (not always) leading to the rubble left behind to fend for itself, while they move onto their next conquest (although, some do go down with their newly created sinking ship).
 
Cake_or_Death said:
The Catholic Church’s teaching on the role of women fits both of these categories, no matter how talented a woman might be in teaching the faith no however knowledgeable she might be of canon law or scripture she can never be a leader of Christendom. Purely because she is female. That fits definition one.

).
Click to expand...
Inasmuch as you are now a protestant or something and have rejected Catholicism at some point in life and for reasons that are sufficient for you, I would not particularly expect you to know that some of the Doctors of the Church were women, and their theological and moral leadership is quite well recognized. A Doctor of the Church is a person acknowledged by the Church to have been at the very pinnacle of legitimate teaching.

Now, your positing a mythical nun with a PhD in Theology having to defer in matters of learning to what you derisively call a “pimply-faced” priest, is simply wrong. I have known sisters of that level of learning, and have little doubt in my mind that you don’t, or you would not have said what you did. Yes, a sister might show respect for what a priest is, just as I would show respect and a certain degree of deference to a nun or a brother. But I don’t think many would concede, in a disputation that mattered, a theological point to an ill-informed priest any more than I would to an ill-informed nun.

It is too bad that you decided to reject the Church before you really gained an understanding of it. Probably nothing anyone can say here will change that, any more than your coming into a Catholic website to gratuitously attack Catholicism is likely to change any minds here.
 
GEddie said:
Sexism is to deny someone a right based on their gender.

There is **no **right to be ordained a priest.

ICXC. NIKA
Click to expand...
Exactly. Men don’t have a right to be ordained, either. How can it be sexist when some men are also not “allowed” to become priests? :confused:

And as far as “rank” goes, I’d say the Blessed Virgin Mary is higher in “rank” than any priest was, is, or ever will be. :cool:

I’d also agree with the poster who said that if your argument is that women should have the same power and authority as men in the Church, not only do you have the wrong focus in your spiritual life, you also know nothing about what it means to be a priest or a Bishop.

I appreciate the differences between men and women, and I am not jealous of the gifts men have been given, because as a woman, I also have gifts that men do not have. I am equal, but not the same. And I don’t want to be the same! It’s very sad that so many women think that being a man (or a priest) is the gold standard to reach, because that means that we women are just “lesser men” unless we show we can do all the things men can do.

True equality bases value on being, not on doing.
 
SyroMalankara said:
The secular lens is this: I see Pope here representing the (incorrectly identified) monolith socio-political structure called “the Catholic Church”. I want some power sharing.

Catholics see the Pope/a priest/bishop as a spiritual servant first, who happens to have some kind of power for the sake of order secondarily.

This is why often when a person with a secularist agenda does ‘get’ what they want in relation to ecclesial authority, they transform the ecclesial structure into a tyranny of their politic. I won’t get into too many specifics, but many “Episcopal Church” is an example among others.

Unfortunately this power-play ends up dismantling the very organization they want restructured, leaving them with no more real power than before their quest; and thus, still unsatisfied, often (not always) leading to the rubble left behind to fend for itself, while they move onto their next conquest (although, some do go down with their newly created sinking ship).
Click to expand...
This is an excellent way to put it. Right on point.
 
Given the sexual confusion in the current culture, it would not surprise me at all to hear a claim that it is sexist to say that men can not be mothers or that women can not be fathers. This is the sort of claim already made when it comes to same sex couples purporting to be parents of children. Sex doesn’t matter, they say–either sex can be both mother and father.

To use Anglicans or Episcopalians as an example of women being perfectly capable of being priests, is to Catholics merely ironic. The fact is that Anglican priests cannot perform adequately at being priests: They do not make the sacrifice of Christ present on their altars; they do not act in the person of Christ to confect the Eucharist.

First, they have no valid apostolic succession, second, they have no valid orders, third, they are not proper matter for ordination, fourth, as women, they cannot act in the Person of Christ when they say the words of consecration—“this is my body.” So, nothing happens.

The whole point of the Eucharist is that something happens. The one time sacrifice of Christ is made present on our altars. That is the chief function of a Catholic priest, and it cannot occur where there is not a validly ordained priest.

Maybe that’s sexist. If so, it was sexist of Christ to become incarnate as a male, sexist to be born of a woman, sexist for a woman to be proclaimed Queen of Heaven.
 
Cake_or_Death said:
Perhaps it could simply be the circles I move in but many don’t feel a need to repeat the church’s stance on female ordination and the like because it is so well known in society, it would be a bit like explaining H2O at the beginning of every report written for marine biologists.

Not just dissenting Catholics, many Protestants and non-believers actually know the why too because the Catholic Church repeats it so often. They just don’t agree with the logic leading to the premise or the premise itself being faulty.

I don’t believe in Islam, but that doesn’t mean I don’t understand why Muslims do. Neither does it automatically mean I agree with them because I understand why they believe it.

The example posted above was actually a situation in Mormonism for a time (Blacks are fellow humans but not eligible of the priesthood) that by definition was racist. Replace “black” with “women” and you get a case of sexism. I’m not saying that’s not a good or a bad thing, but excluding someone from any office due to their gender is by definition sexist. I’m aware of the argument “but men can’t give birth” but since women have been fulfilling the roles of Clerics rather adequately in Anglican churches for some time now this is not a valid defense in non-Catholic eyes since to them it’s been “proven” women can do it.

I’m not complaining about it, I’m just not sure why Catholics object to it being described as sexism because it is. Whats wrong with calling a spade a spade?
Click to expand...
I haven’t gotten to the end of the thread so sorry for any accidental repetition, but I don’t think that’s a fair comparison with Mormons, as the Mormon priesthood is quite distinct from the Catholic priesthood. In the Mormon faith, every single adult male in good standing is supposed to be a priest:

mormon.org/faq/purpose-of-priesthood

So, the Mormon priesthood is the norm for Mormon males, but the Catholic priesthood is exceptional even for Catholic males.
 
Cake_or_Death said:
I can’t say what yours is, but do you think it would be fair that a Doctor of Biblical studies who’s spent the best part of fifty-three years mastering Aramaic, Koine Greek, Hebrew and the scriptures itself should be “corrected” by some pimply little boy who can’t even quote the scripture? I certainly don’t, and I certainly set him straight when he tries to correct my readings of it, sadly due to her vows she must meekly nod and agree; even if she knows he is mistaken, even when what he says goes against the Catholic view (unless it’s something huge like “SSM is ok”) she is obliged to silence because he is above her. To say this isn’t encouraged simply isn’t true, I mean to quote St. Catherine of Sienna…
Click to expand...
With all due respect, your family is hyper-clerical to a degree that I have literally never seen in real life.

If you asked Pope Francis, “Should a rank-and-file priest be assumed to have a better scripture interpretation than a highly-educated nun with a doctorate in Biblical studies?” I’m pretty sure I know what his answer should be.

Your family is not representative of Catholics in the world at large.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
The NYT article demonstrated again that news editors would not let someone write about sports who don’t know the difference between a home run and a touchdown, but will often let people who don’t know much of anything about religion to wrote stories about it.
Click to expand...
👍

The author of the article would call it discrimination to deny a 4-sided polygon the label “triangle.”
 
gracepoole said:
NYT Undervalues Women, Not Catholicism
Click to expand...
Although the final paragraph of this article touches on the crux of the matter, I’m not a big fan of the “hypocrisy” argument, at least as a primary response to nonsensical polemics like the Bruni op-ed. I tend to be more interested in demonstrating why Bruni’s assertions are patently wrong. Because theoretically, even if the NYT was staffed by 99% women, including the highest positions, he would still be wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top