Disciplinary council for the founder of the Ordain Women movement in the LDS church

[TexanKnight]

There is a chasm separating the Catholic church and the LDS church in the treatment of Kate Kelly. No Catholic woman has been thrown out of the Catholic church for advocating women’s ordination.

Nor does the Catholic Church say it is ok for a man to have many wives while a woman can only have one husband…nor does the Catholic Church say that the only way for a woman to get to heaven is for a man to pull her in…

Yes…chasms of differences.

 

[LivingWaters7]

But I see them also as questions that are posed to us Orthodox. For example, the question of women priests and bishops. Most Orthodox would say, we should not ordain women. But if you ask them why not, they will say that it has never been done; they will appeal to tradition. But you press them a little farther, and say that there must be a reason why women have never been ordained as priests. The argument from tradition merely tells you that they have never been ordained as priests, but it does not tell you why. Surely there must be some theological reason. On the one hand, the Orthodox are certain and clear in their answer. Most of us would say, no, we could not ever ordain women. Yet others would say, it is for us essentially an open question. We are not proposing to do so in the near future, but we need to reflect more deeply on it. If all we say is, “impossible, never,” we perhaps should ask ourselves, what are the implications for our understanding of human nature , of the difference between male and female, for our understanding of the priesthood and the relationship of the priest to Christ. That is an example of how your questions are perhaps to some extent also our questions.

virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8803

*The order of deaconesses seems definitely to have been considered an “ordained” ministry during early centuries in at any rate the Christian East. … Some Orthodox writers regard deaconesses as having been a “lay” ministry. There are strong reasons for rejecting this view. In the Byzantine rite the liturgical office for the laying-on of hands for the deaconess is exactly parallel to that for the deacon; and so on the principle lex orandi, lex credendi—the Church’s worshipping practice is a sure indication of its faith—it follows that the deaconesses receives, as does the deacon, a genuine sacramental ordination: not just a χειροθεσια (chirothesia) but a χειροτονια (chirotonia). *

• From the wikipedia article on female ordination, and also quoted in other web articles.

EDIT: I dug up an ordination text as well:

“Lord, Master, you do not reject women who dedicate themselves to you and who are willing, in a becoming way, to serve your Holy House, but admit them to the order of your ministers λειτουργων]. Grant the gift of your Holy Spirit also to this your maid servant who wants to dedicate herself to you, and fulfil in her the grace of the diaconate διακονιας], as you have granted to Phoebe the grace of your diaconate διακονιας], whom you had called to the work of the ministry λειτουργιας]. Give her, Lord, that she may persevere without guilt in your Holy Temple, that she may carefully guard her behaviour, especially her modesty and temperance. Moreover, make your maid servant perfect, so that, when she will stand before the judgement seat of your Christ, she may obtain the worthy fruit of her excellent conduct, through the mercy and humanity of your Only Son.”

womendeacons.org/rite/hobart.shtml

Interesting thanks. On the Orthodox Church in America’s website, they responded to a question from someone asking about Bishop Ware and ordination. I obviously haven’t reviewed the matter in any way to add comment on the Orthodox view, however I did find it interesting that they say:

Thank you for your email concerning the comments made by Bishop Kallistos Ware.
**
While his comments must be understood in the context in which they were made, it is generally accepted that his opinions on the matter are nothing more than personal opinions and do not represent any “current trend” in Orthodox Christianity. There has been a degree of debate on the issue, but nothing that remotely approaches similar debates in Roman Catholic and certain Protestant circles.

While there are many aspects of this issue which one might discuss from a theological and traditional perspective, I am confident to say that the ordination of women is definitely something that we are not likely to see in our lifetimes, if ever. Hence, it falls in the realm of speculation; our faith challenges us to deal with reality.**
oca.org/questions/priesthoodmonasticism/ordination-of-women1

 

[pablope]

Interesting thanks. On the Orthodox Church in America’s website, they responded to a question from someone asking about Bishop Ware and ordination. I obviously haven’t reviewed the matter in any way to add comment on the Orthodox view, however I did find it interesting that they say:

Thank you for your email concerning the comments made by Bishop Kallistos Ware.
**
While his comments must be understood in the context in which they were made, it is generally accepted that his opinions on the matter are nothing more than personal opinions and do not represent any “current trend” in Orthodox Christianity. There has been a degree of debate on the issue, but nothing that remotely approaches similar debates in Roman Catholic and certain Protestant circles.

While there are many aspects of this issue which one might discuss from a theological and traditional perspective, I am confident to say that the ordination of women is definitely something that we are not likely to see in our lifetimes, if ever. Hence, it falls in the realm of speculation; our faith challenges us to deal with reality.**
oca.org/questions/priesthoodmonasticism/ordination-of-women1

Well…knowing the OC, I do not think one OC bishop will decide for himself to ordain women, they will have to call for a council.

 

[RebeccaJ]

[SIGN][/SIGN]As a Mormon, back in the day, the deference to all men was because they ALL are priesthood holders. Men are gods in the making and priesthood is a godly power that all in the LDS church are bound to obey. Both men and women, with women more so because no woman holds the priesthood. Even a woman’s 12 year old son is above her, as an ordained priesthood holder.

The HUGE difference I see in Catholicism, is that we are bound to obey God, not every single Catholic man and boy over the age of 11, because they are on the road to godhood and need the practice so they can rule for eternity as gods. Catholics hold no idea that ALL men have a better insight into the will if God for ALL women, because men have a priesthood power that women do not.

With the Mormon idea of women as future goddesses…well, why wouldn’t a goddess be equal in power to a god?

To have some sort of idea that this has anything to do with Catholicism, is not even reasonable. I can say, quite reasonably, that a Mormon priestess makes sense, in a Mormon context. Gods and goddesses, priests and priestesses.

Where is the Catholic equivalent? There isn’t one. As a Catholic woman, I don’t view our priests as on the road to godhood, and to be on equal footing as a woman on the road to being a goddess, I should have equal access to a priesthood that is indicative of divinely held powers to be used as though I am a goddess in the making.

As I said, priestess has connotations of paganism, and it fits with the pagan ideas that exist in Mormonism. No one gets all worried that a pagan priestess means Catholics will get an idea that women should be ordained. That is how I see the ordination of women and men in Mormonism. Pagan ideas cloaked in Christian words.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The LDS women don’t have any point. I don’t see any of the above as subjugation. From what I understand Kate Kelly never took a vow to obey her husband in the temple since that has been removed. Even if it wasn’t removed, the duty of the wife to obey the husband is just good New Testament doctrine. In LDS doctrine a husband can’t get to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom without a wife to pull through the veil. There would be obvious problems with a woman having more than one husband – how would you establish paternity in such a marriage? The idea the modern LDS Church is subjugating women is laughable. Honestly, there is no more subjugation of women in the modern LDS Church than there is in the Catholic Church. There are many church denominations which don’t allow women to have priesthood or ministerial duties. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Eastern Orthodox Churches, and Southern Baptist churches are just the ones that come to mind immediately. LDS women regularly speak and give prayers in LDS sacrament meetings every Sunday. That is more than they can do in the above churches.

Well, sometimes I see that misogyny is alive and well in Catholicism. Other times, most often coming from a priest, I see that Catholic teaching really gets the inherent dignity in all people. Like the time a priest explained that the New Testament relationship of a husband and wife is based on mutual love and respect. That a woman is obedient to the love of her husband, that he is to show towards her. Obedience is not to a husband just because he is a man. If there is no love towards the wife, there is nothing holding the relationship together, and so obedience to someone just because of their gender doesn’t make any sense at all, and is not taught anywhere in the New Testament.

As for veils, I am modest in a church as a deference to GOD, not to any man there, priest or laity. When I read of men complaining about how a woman is dressed or not dressed, I think, it’s none of his business. Busy body control freak is what I think.

I hold no belief that any man is above me. Sorry if that busts your ideas about what Jesus taught, but no, everything he taught is for GOD.

I believe I have an obligation to my Bishop, because he is a successor to the Apostles, not because he is a man and I am not.

 

[RebeccaJ]

As a Catholic woman, the doctrine of in persona Christi is the clincher for me. I don’t feel unequal before God because God Incarnate, is a Man, and I am a woman. Likewise, a man acting in persona Christi does not cause me to feel unequal before God. I don’t feel inferior as a woman, just because Jesus is a Man. Why would I? Quite the opposite, Jesus lifts us all up, with Him, male and female.

I am not a militant feminist, with ideas that society is structured to the detriment of women and needs to be radically altered to achieve a [false] idea of equality. But neither do I have the view that society needs to be structured in a way that silences women, or anyone for that matter.

Mormonism is a patriarchal society, because they try to emulate Old Testament culture. They conflate culture with religion. Catholicism doesn’t have this particular burden.

 

[anon99031074]

As a Catholic woman, the doctrine of in persona Christi is the clincher for me. I don’t feel unequal before God because God Incarnate, is a Man, and I am a woman. Likewise, a man acting in persona Christi does not cause me to feel unequal before God. I don’t feel inferior as a woman, just because Jesus is a Man. Why would I? Quite the opposite, Jesus lifts us all up, with Him, male and female.

I am not a militant feminist, with ideas that society is structured to the detriment of women and needs to be radically altered to achieve a [false] idea of equality. But neither do I have the view that society needs to be structured in a way that silences women, or anyone for that matter.

Mormonism is a patriarchal society, because they try to emulate Old Testament culture. They conflate culture with religion. Catholicism doesn’t have this particular burden.

Interesting. I think what you mention about the priest acting in persona Christi is the key to the whole thing. Should women ever be ordained in the CC (and I have no idea if they will), I think one could still argue that the priesthood is all male, since the only true priest is Jesus, and his ministers on earth are acting in persona Christi. It is Jesus who consecrates the Eucharist or forgives sins, not his earthly ministers, and so even grievous sinners can validly grant absolution, for instance. Women can validly baptize, and in so doing, they are symbols of the Trinity: Jesus giving his life willingly and being buried, and the Father raising him from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity is working through them. While it is true that Jesus never ordained women, so far as we know, he apparently never gave communion to women either. So if the gospels not mentioning female ordination proves that the Church is not authorized to ordain women, it proves too much. (EDIT: And 1 Corinthians 11 is addressed to “brothers” and “men” partaking of the Eucharist, but inclusive language hides this, and so it doesn’t prove that women partook of the Eucharist in NT-times either).

At any rate, I am not going to start a long debate about this issue. I think it is solvable though. There needs to be no violation of past teaching even if women are ordained.

 

[iepuras]

[SIGN][/SIGN]As a Mormon, back in the day, the deference to all men was because they ALL are priesthood holders. Men are gods in the making and priesthood is a godly power that all in the LDS church are bound to obey. Both men and women, with women more so because no woman holds the priesthood. Even a woman’s 12 year old son is above her, as an ordained priesthood holder.

The HUGE difference I see in Catholicism, is that we are bound to obey God, not every single Catholic man and boy over the age of 11, because they are on the road to godhood and need the practice so they can rule for eternity as gods. Catholics hold no idea that ALL men have a better insight into the will if God for ALL women, because men have a priesthood power that women do not.

With the Mormon idea of women as future goddesses…well, why wouldn’t a goddess be equal in power to a god?

To have some sort of idea that this has anything to do with Catholicism, is not even reasonable. I can say, quite reasonably, that a Mormon priestess makes sense, in a Mormon context. Gods and goddesses, priests and priestesses.

Where is the Catholic equivalent? There isn’t one. As a Catholic woman, I don’t view our priests as on the road to godhood, and to be on equal footing as a woman on the road to being a goddess, I should have equal access to a priesthood that is indicative of divinely held powers to be used as though I am a goddess in the making.

As I said, priestess has connotations of paganism, and it fits with the pagan ideas that exist in Mormonism. No one gets all worried that a pagan priestess means Catholics will get an idea that women should be ordained. That is how I see the ordination of women and men in Mormonism. Pagan ideas cloaked in Christian words.

You are correct that Mormonism is simply paganized Christianity. If women are goddesses in embryo, why not ordain them to the priestesshood?

 

[iepuras]

Well, sometimes I see that misogyny is alive and well in Catholicism. Other times, most often coming from a priest, I see that Catholic teaching really gets the inherent dignity in all people. Like the time a priest explained that the New Testament relationship of a husband and wife is based on mutual love and respect. That a woman is obedient to the love of her husband, that he is to show towards her. Obedience is not to a husband just because he is a man. If there is no love towards the wife, there is nothing holding the relationship together, and so obedience to someone just because of their gender doesn’t make any sense at all, and is not taught anywhere in the New Testament.

As for veils, I am modest in a church as a deference to GOD, not to any man there, priest or laity. When I read of men complaining about how a woman is dressed or not dressed, I think, it’s none of his business. Busy body control freak is what I think.

I hold no belief that any man is above me. Sorry if that busts your ideas about what Jesus taught, but no, everything he taught is for GOD.

I believe I have an obligation to my Bishop, because he is a successor to the Apostles, not because he is a man and I am not.

Many times when someone refers to how wives are to be obedient to their husbands they often seem to forget what St. Paul told the husbands - that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. Christ loves the Church unto His own suffering and death. His love is humble, kind and long-suffering. How many husbands who demand obedience from their wives love them as Christ does? The inherent dignity of both men and women are respected when there is mutual love and respect between spouses as Christ loves the Church.

 

[iepuras]

As a Catholic woman, the doctrine of in persona Christi is the clincher for me. I don’t feel unequal before God because God Incarnate, is a Man, and I am a woman. Likewise, a man acting in persona Christi does not cause me to feel unequal before God. I don’t feel inferior as a woman, just because Jesus is a Man. Why would I? Quite the opposite, Jesus lifts us all up, with Him, male and female.

I am not a militant feminist, with ideas that society is structured to the detriment of women and needs to be radically altered to achieve a [false] idea of equality. But neither do I have the view that society needs to be structured in a way that silences women, or anyone for that matter.

Mormonism is a patriarchal society, because they try to emulate Old Testament culture. They conflate culture with religion. Catholicism doesn’t have this particular burden.

I agree completely.

Priesthood in orthodox Christianity and Mormonism are different animals so it’s not really good to compare. The differences would be a good topic for another thread.

The fact that God Incarnate is a man, does not devalue me as a woman. He lifts all to Him, both male and female. Look at what God did for His greatest creation, His Mother the Blessed Virgin Mary. The fact that His greatest creation is a woman does not devalue men. God did great things for Mary and that gives me great hope that He will do great things for me and all men and women.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Interesting. I think what you mention about the priest acting in persona Christi is the key to the whole thing. Should women ever be ordained in the CC (and I have no idea if they will), I think one could still argue that the priesthood is all male, since the only true priest is Jesus, and his ministers on earth are acting in persona Christi. It is Jesus who consecrates the Eucharist or forgives sins, not his earthly ministers, and so even grievous sinners can validly grant absolution, for instance. Women can validly baptize, and in so doing, they are symbols of the Trinity: Jesus giving his life willingly and being buried, and the Father raising him from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity is working through them. While it is true that Jesus never ordained women, so far as we know, he apparently never gave communion to women either. So if the gospels not mentioning female ordination proves that the Church is not authorized to ordain women, it proves too much. (EDIT: And 1 Corinthians 11 is addressed to “brothers” and “men” partaking of the Eucharist, but inclusive language hides this, and so it doesn’t prove that women partook of the Eucharist in NT-times either).

At any rate, I am not going to start a long debate about this issue. I think it is solvable though. There needs to be no violation of past teaching even if women are ordained.

All are called to the same vocation, that of discipleship. Not all are called to priesthood or religious life. Our women Saints and Doctors are evidence that priesthood ordination is not something that is required for living as a disciple of Christ.

Mormonism has a distinct lack of women role models who would be viewed as strongly as we view our female Saints and Doctors, and of course Mary. Even Mary has a diminutive role in the Mormon understanding of her.

 

[garyo49]

I don’t see how Kate Kelly is a Mormon apostate. (?)

But yes, Mormonism can and does change. They have an all lay priesthood and there really isn’t a sensible reason for women to not be included in their priesthood.

The most often given reason is that priesthood is a male role, comparable to mothering is a female role. Never made any sense to me, as fathering is a male role and that doesn’t change because a Mormon man has “priesthood authority”. Mothering wouldn’t change if Mormon women were priesthood holders.

Do you feel the same way about woman being ordained in the Catholic Church?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Do you feel the same way about woman being ordained in the Catholic Church?

I’ve already written out my POV.

When I was in RCIA, I read here, on this forum, people recommending “Catholics for Dummies”. So, I went to a bookstore one day, and specifically went to the section on ordination and it covers not ordaining women. You know what it says? Paraphrasing, women are mothers and men have the priesthood. I threw the book across the room. Literally.

Lamest reasoning, and I never recommend that book to anyone. I went home and researched on my own the REAL understanding of Catholic priesthood.

Fatherhood is to men, as motherhood is to women. It isn’t, priesthood is to men, as motherhood is to women.

There are other, GOOD, theological reason to not ordain women, in a Catholic context. These GOOD reasons don’t exist in Mormonism.

 

[OctobersOwn]

I’ve already written out my POV.

When I was in RCIA, I read here, on this forum, people recommending “Catholics for Dummies”. So, I went to a bookstore one day, and specifically went to the section on ordination and it covers not ordaining women. You know what it says? Paraphrasing, women are mothers and men have the priesthood. I threw the book across the room. Literally.

Lamest reasoning, and I never recommend that book to anyone. I went home and researched on my own the REAL understanding of Catholic priesthood.

Fatherhood is to men, as motherhood is to women. It isn’t, priesthood is to men, as motherhood is to women.

There are other, GOOD, theological reason to not ordain women, in a Catholic context. These GOOD reasons don’t exist in Mormonism.

If you have the time/care to, would you expand into these good reasons? Or perhaps pointing to a good article that explains them?

thank ye!

 

[jeannetherese]

Women can validly baptize, and in so doing, they are symbols of the Trinity:

Hi Shunyata,
I know that any Catholic may baptize in a state of emergency, but I missed the official Catholic teaching that says we are symbols of the Trinity. do you have a Catholic source for this?
Thanks and may God bless you.
jt

 

[RebeccaJ]

If you have the time/care to, would you expand into these good reasons? Or perhaps pointing to a good article that explains them?

thank ye!

Sure.

newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1111-gardiner

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I like that the Mormons have one thing right at least.

 

[lutheran_farmer]

The Mormons really view women as inferior. I would not term their view as getting “one thing right”. It goes against Catholic teaching to treat women that way. Saint Pope John Paul II stated very clearly about women being equal to men in their rights as persons. It’s sad that he had to actually say what we know in our hearts to be true. Mothers cannot be fathers and fathers cannot be mothers, but that doesn’t make anyone inferior.

 

[anon99031074]

Hi Shunyata,
I know that any Catholic may baptize in a state of emergency, but I missed the official Catholic teaching that says we are symbols of the Trinity. do you have a Catholic source for this?
Thanks and may God bless you.
jt

A sacrament is an outward visible sign that communicates the grace it signifies.

From the Cathecism:

1227. According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ’s death, is buried with him, and rises with him: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.The baptized have “put on Christ.” Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.

1234 The meaning and grace of the sacrament of Baptism are clearly seen in the rites of its celebration. By following the gestures and words of this celebration with attentive participation, the faithful are initiated into the riches this sacrament signifies and actually brings about in each newly baptized person.

1240 In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the minister’s words: “N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In the Eastern liturgies the catechumen turns toward the East and the priest says: “The servant of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” At the invocation of each person of the Most Holy Trinity, the priest immerses the candidate in the water and raises him up again.

The baptismal formula is pretty important in this regard. Baptizing in the name of the Trinity means acting by their authority, as their representative. And so women can be symbols or representatives of the Trinity. EDIT: Also note that the “priest immerses the candidate in the water and raises him up again.” Christ gave himself willingly (signified by immersion) and the Father raised him up by the power of the Holy Spirit (signified by raising the candidate up again). Women can do this, and did so on a regular basis when deaconesses were ordained in the Church (now only in case of emergency).

All are called to the same vocation, that of discipleship. Not all are called to priesthood or religious life. Our women Saints and Doctors are evidence that priesthood ordination is not something that is required for living as a disciple of Christ.

Mormonism has a distinct lack of women role models who would be viewed as strongly as we view our female Saints and Doctors, and of course Mary. Even Mary has a diminutive role in the Mormon understanding of her.

It is true that everybody isn’t called to the priesthood. It is also true that being a priest isn’t a right (an argument you didn’t bring up, but which is often used). The problem I have is when such arguments are used to exclude groups of people based on gender, race or other human abstractions. The same arguments could be used to exclude all kinds of groups from the priesthood. Jesus never authorized the Church to ordain blond and blue eyed males. A racist could argue that “nobody has a right to become a priest, and so it would not be discrimination not to give the priesthood to such males. Jesus had brown hair and brown eyes, so how can a blue eyed blond male represent him? He would make a poor icon of a Jewish Messiah…”

Since any vocation to the priesthood is not merely a personal thing (where one feels called to become a priest by God), but also a communal thing, where the Church must also vouch for the vocation, one could easily exclude all blond and blue eyed males who felt they were personally called to be priests by Christ. They might subjectively feel that they have a vocation, but without support from a (discriminating) Church, they never objectively have, or so we are told.

To me, the women-priest thing is not primarily a women rights issue, although I do feel women are being discriminated against for no good reason. I do, however, feel it is a profound loss for the Church that so many wonderful and qualified women who could do a world of good for the Church, and bring a much needed feminine perspective into the higher ranks of the Church, are not ordained. This comes from experience of women ministers in other religions who are deeply spiritual, conduct the sacraments of their religions with deep reverence, and who clearly have an awesome gift to teach others with clarity and compassion. But of course, it is not my business to tell the Church who to ordain. I have no such authority. I am merely expressing my opinion based on my admittedly limited knowledge and experience.

 

[RebeccaJ]

A sacrament is an outward visible sign that communicates the grace it signifies.

From the Cathecism:

1227. According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ’s death, is buried with him, and rises with him: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.The baptized have “put on Christ.” Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.

1234 The meaning and grace of the sacrament of Baptism are clearly seen in the rites of its celebration. By following the gestures and words of this celebration with attentive participation, the faithful are initiated into the riches this sacrament signifies and actually brings about in each newly baptized person.

1240 In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the minister’s words: “N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In the Eastern liturgies the catechumen turns toward the East and the priest says: “The servant of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” At the invocation of each person of the Most Holy Trinity, the priest immerses the candidate in the water and raises him up again.

The baptismal formula is pretty important in this regard. Baptizing in the name of the Trinity means acting by their authority, as their representative. And so women can be symbols or representatives of the Trinity. EDIT: Also note that the “priest immerses the candidate in the water and raises him up again.” Christ gave himself willingly (signified by immersion) and the Father raised him up by the power of the Holy Spirit (signified by raising the candidate up again). Women can do this, and did so on a regular basis when deaconesses were ordained in the Church (now only in case of emergency).

It is true that everybody isn’t called to the priesthood. It is also true that being a priest isn’t a right (an argument you didn’t bring up, but which is often used). The problem I have is when such arguments are used to exclude groups of people based on gender, race or other human abstractions. The same arguments could be used to exclude all kinds of groups from the priesthood. Jesus never authorized the Church to ordain blond and blue eyed males. A racist could argue that “nobody has a right to become a priest, and so it would not be discrimination not to give the priesthood to such males. Jesus had brown hair and brown eyes, so how can a blue eyed blond male represent him? He would make a poor icon of a Jewish Messiah…”

Since any vocation to the priesthood is not merely a personal thing (where one feels called to become a priest by God), but also a communal thing, where the Church must also vouch for the vocation, one could easily exclude all blond and blue eyed males who felt they were personally called to be priests by Christ. They might subjectively feel that they have a vocation, but without support from a (discriminating) Church, they never objectively have, or so we are told.

To me, the women-priest thing is not primarily a women rights issue, although I do feel women are being discriminated against for no good reason. I do, however, feel it is a profound loss for the Church that so many wonderful and qualified women who could do a world of good for the Church, and bring a much needed feminine perspective into the higher ranks of the Church, are not ordained. This comes from experience of women ministers in other religions who are deeply spiritual, conduct the sacraments of their religions with deep reverence, and who clearly have an awesome gift to teach others with clarity and compassion. But of course, it is not my business to tell the Church who to ordain. I have no such authority. I am merely expressing my opinion based on my admittedly limited knowledge and experience.

Your argument assumes that blonde hair and blue eyes are as integral to what makes a person, as sex/gender. I don’t share this assumption. I don’t view the ever increasing androgynizatiion of society, as reflecting reality. I view it as an artificial construct.

Whether one is male or female, is not an abstraction.

I don’t know what awesome spirituality has to do with anything. Or reverence, or a gift for teaching. Having these things does not indicate one is called to ordination, as there are very many lay men who have all these things, and are not priests.