DRE believes women should be priests and doctrine needs to change

[tequilamac]

Bring it up with your priest, then if he doesn’t do anything I would bring it up with your bishop. You are perfectly justified in being upset over this. The head of education should actually beleive in the Faith.

Dur, you think? When was belief in the Faith a requirement to be DRE? ferschizzle.

Our DRE does not believe in the necessity of knowing whether your political candidates are pro life or not. She literally stood up in public and she and her husband both told me “No one cares about that when they vote.” Go figure.

 

[netmilsmom]

I would just like to point out that the difference in upper body strength is irrelevant to the duties of the priesthood. Men can’t do the balance beam in gymnastics because they lack the flexibility, but that does not disqualify them for most occupations or vocations in the world.

Well no actually you said this…
Originally Posted by jbuck919 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
God made us so that women can do anything men can do, period. We’ve been fighting this too long.

Not everything so therefore your “period” is not correct.

 

[decn2b]

Jesus wasn’t strongarmed by his cultural mileu. There were tons of Priestesses running around 2000 years ago. Not christian priestesses but pagan priestesses. It would not have been innovative for him to name a few gals

 

[tequilamac]

Jesus wasn’t strongarmed by his cultural mileu. There were tons of Priestesses running around 2000 years ago. Not christian priestesses but pagan priestesses. It would not have been innovative for him to name a few gals

Maybe Jesus wasn’t into bench presses.

 

[netmilsmom]

Dur, you think? When was belief in the Faith a requirement to be DRE? ferschizzle.

Our DRE does not believe in the necessity of knowing whether your political candidates are pro life or not. She literally stood up in public and she and her husband both told me “No one cares about that when they vote.” Go figure.

Our DRE told me in an Education Committee meeting that she really didn’t care whether the kids got the CCC or not but rather that they had a good experience.

I escaped, quick.

 

[mikew262]

Definition of heretic:
a person who holds religious beliefs in conflict with the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church
a person who holds unorthodox opinions in any field (not merely religion)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Thanks for the definition, I know what heresy means. My point is if one has to resort to namecalling/insulting, then maybe they shouldn’t respond.

This forum is for open discussion as far as I know. Demeaning somebody tends to prohibit the openness. Refute a person’s position, but leave out the insults. Calling somebody a heretic to me, is a borderline insult.

 

[tequilamac]

Our DRE told me in an Education Committee meeting that she really didn’t care whether the kids got the CCC or not but rather that they had a good experience.

I escaped, quick.

A good experience? In my experience catechism class is NOT a kid’s idea of a good time. For a good time call the DRE?

 

[Karianne]

At our church this last Saturday we had our two little ones practicing for a play for the Christmas Mass on the 24th. Well afterwards I spoke to one of the ladies there and I mentioned that most Catholics today do not know what it means to be Catholic, that the education of young Catholics is so bad that I have a buddy that is a craddle Catholic turned Pentacost and that I know more about Catholicism and I became Catholic eight years ago in my thirties and learned on my own most of what I know today.

Well little did I know (until after the conversation) that this lady is the Director of Education at our church. :banghead:

Well the discussion changed to how the Episcopal church has women priests when I was trying to make my point and she said “good for them”. Even though I did not know she was the DRE I found this remark to be very disturbing. She plainly made me aware that women not being able to be ordained to priesthood is a doctrine which can be changed and should be. My feelings from her were that this is what she was attempting to further in our little church. Since my son has started Catechism there I am even more disturbed by the whole conversation with our DRE.

I know the Catechism (1577) teaches only a man (vir) or men (viri) can be ordained as a priest and St Augustine wrote as much. But I am pulled between wanting to rectify this as best I can by attending January’s council meeting and speaking out and/or speaking to the head Priest if necessary or leaving and being a member at another Catholic church.

What the DRE is supporting seems like heresy to me.

Am I wrong in my thoughts or am I simply not being tolerant? And if I have justification for my thoughts and/or feelings what actions should I take?

I think that you should have challenged the lady directly.
Probably it was hard to get someone to serve as DRE in your church and she was the best they could get.
What are her qualifications to teach, if you complain will you be offered the job? Would you accept it?
It sounds like she’s a pretty caring person if she’s willing to put on a pageant, there’s a lot of work involved in her job.
The Church is getting smaller and smaller because of the disagreements that people have on these issues.
I don’t think that you are intolerant, I think that you care deeply about your faith and your children.
That’s a good thing.

 

[netmilsmom]

Thanks for the definition, I know what heresy means. My point is if one has to resort to namecalling/insulting, then maybe they shouldn’t respond.

This forum is for open discussion as far as I know. Demeaning somebody tends to prohibit the openness. Refute a person’s position, but leave out the insults. Calling somebody a heretic to me, is a borderline insult.

Actually, Brendan didn’t call her a heretic. But did call the idea heresy which is correct. It is against church teaching.

 

[tequilamac]

Actually, Brendan didn’t call her a heretic. But did call the idea heresy which is correct. It is against church teaching.

Splendid distinction thank you.

 

[netmilsmom]

I think that you should have challenged the lady directly.
Probably it was hard to get someone to serve as DRE in your church and she was the best they could get.
What are her qualifications to teach, if you complain will you be offered the job? Would you accept it?
It sounds like she’s a pretty caring person if she’s willing to put on a pageant, there’s a lot of work involved in her job.
The Church is getting smaller and smaller because of the disagreements that people have on these issues.
I don’t think that you are intolerant, I think that you care deeply about your faith and your children.
That’s a good thing.

This is the best idea I have seen.
Let me tell you, I WOULD rather clean bathrooms at my parish than take over the DRE position.

In our parish, we actually have a DRE couple. And the grief a DRE gets from both sides is unbelievable! It’s a huge job. Perhaps the OP and his wife would get farther if they volunteered to take over. Maybe there is no one else.

 

[Brendan]

Actually, Brendan didn’t call her a heretic. But did call the idea heresy which is correct. It is against church teaching.

That is correct. To be called a heretic requires the decision of a Church tribunal that a person obstinatly holds to a belief that the Church has defined as being heresy.

I made no claim that jbuck is a heretic.

What I DID say was that the belief that Christ’s human will could in any way be formed against Divine Justice IS heresy.

There is a difference.

 

[Brendan]

Jesus wasn’t strongarmed by his cultural mileu. There were tons of Priestesses running around 2000 years ago. Not christian priestesses but pagan priestesses. It would not have been innovative for him to name a few gals

Not only that, but several of the first Popes, such as Clement Linus Sixtus and Telephorus and were Roman or Greek. They would not have had any cultural prohibition about having priestess, as priestess were very common in the Pagan temples.

But not a single one of them instituted priestess in the Church.

Why?

But none

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Steichen, Donna, UnGodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism; 1991

amazon.com/Ungodly-Rage-Hidden-Catholic-Feminism/dp/0898703484/sr=8-1/qid=1165966409/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-7802787-3615148?ie=UTF8&s=books

Even before Michael Rose, Mrs Steichen warned us of the “gatekeeper” syndrome, of liberals in stategic positions trying to further their political, socaila, sexual, and theological agendas

 

[Paul_from_MA]

“There have to be factions among you in order that the truth may become known.” 1 Cor 11, 19

I, for one, love it when people air out views that are different than those currently proposed by the Church. How else are we supposed to learn anything? There were some folks back in the 'fifties who talked about Mass in the vernacular and eating meat on Fridays. Were they heretics? How about the people now who talk about Mass in Latin and abstinence days on Friday? Are they heretics?

If a DRE says she’d like the Church, someday, to ordain women she’s not a heretic, she’s a liberal. If she goes no further than provoking discussion, she’s doing everyone a favor – provided people can speak to each other and listen respectfully. On the other hand, if she finds some renegade priest who’s willing to hold self-authorized ordinations and starts calling herself a priest and starts saying “Masses”, she’s provoking a schism.

Talk is good, disobedience is bad. The pursuit of truth is sometimes a ragged bit of business – that’s why persistence is a virtue.

I want to talk about possible changes in the priesthood. I’m someone who’s annoyed about the fact that, little by little, we’ve come to accept married priests. As far as I’m concerned, a man who tries to fulfill a husband’s duty to his wife AND a priest’s duty to his parish is bound to fail both. I know, though, that we’ve accepted some convert priests from the Anglican Communion who were already married. I don’t want to cause trouble for these individuals whose ministry has already been accepted by the Church – but I’m alarmed that we’ve allowed ourselves to forget how well served we’ve been by a commitment to celibacy.

So, I’m willing to put myself out on the line and say something that is contrary to current Church teaching (although it’s completely in line with what I was taught as a boy). Can we discuss it intelligently with the hope that truth can emerge from the process of exploring different viewpoints, or will I end up backing away because people are calling me names for disagreeing with what we’re being told?

 

[Stu]

Paul,

All very good points and reasonably stated. However, the parish DRE and anyone else teaching the kids in my mind has a responsibility to teach 100% Catholic dogma and nothing else. Now can somebody keep those view to themselves and teach in accordance with the beliefs of the Church? Yes. But the fact that she felt comfortable enough to share her personal opinions on this matter is very telling. From that act alone I come to the conclusion that she is either just as free-wheeling in her beliefs when teaching or not wise enough to realize her responsibility to keep quiet as vocalizing such thoughts causes questions among the faithful when coming from someone in a position of authority. Therefore, bottom line for me is that she is not the right person for the position.

Vivat Iesus,
Stu

 

[decn2b]

*" How about the people now who talk about Mass in Latin and abstinence days on Friday? Are they heretics?
Actually paul the meatless Friday thing is still a church teaching…Some heretic fooled people into thinking otherwise…(ok just kidding…about the heretic not the meatless friday)

The church never suspended meatless Fridays.

 

[Paul_from_MA]

Stu,

 Thanks for reading my post and responding with such thoughtfulness.  It dawned on me, as I read what you wrote, that my own experiences have a big impact on the way I feel about this issue.  I was brought up very Catholic, in a very Catholic extended family and I went to a very Catholic grammar school.  This was during the period of Vatican II.  I can remember, in Fifth Grade, participating in a series of debates about proposed liturgical reforms.

 Unlike the DRE in this thread, our teacher, Sr. Patricia, never revealed her opinions on the topics we were debating -- but she made sure that, if we spoke on a topic, we knew what we were talking about.  And I was ten at the time!

 The effect of my own religious upbringing was to convince me of the power of prayer, honest conversation, reason and good will.  It also served as a warning against people whose understanding of issues is so shallow that all they can do is say, "I'm right, and that's that."  I realize, as I converse with you, that I still have a way to go before I'm past being 'hot under the collar' about that.

 You talk about wanting a DRE who's 100% on dogma.  I find it hard to ask of others what I can't give myself.  Take the issue of birth control, for example.  Our church teaches that the "rhythm method" is acceptable.  I can't find it in myself to agree on that one.  I've prayed about it, thought about it, read about it (as you can see I'm even WRITING about it) ... and I still maintain that unless a couple fully expects and intends to reproduce, they shouldn't have sex.  I don't spout my 'heretical' views to teenagers (well, not to OTHER PEOPLE'S teenagers) but I know my ideas are at variance with the Church and it pains me.

 I see no way past the pain that doesn't involove honest conversation -- and in 2006, I feel that that sort of conversation is in short supply.  In 1964 it seemed (happy day) to be easy to come by.  But maybe I look at the past through rose colored glasses.

P

 

[jmcrae]

You talk about wanting a DRE who’s 100% on dogma. I find it hard to ask of others what I can’t give myself. Take the issue of birth control, for example. Our church teaches that the “rhythm method” is acceptable. I can’t find it in myself to agree on that one. I’ve prayed about it, thought about it, read about it (as you can see I’m even WRITING about it) … and I still maintain that unless a couple fully expects and intends to reproduce, they shouldn’t have sex. I don’t spout my ‘heretical’ views to teenagers (well, not to OTHER PEOPLE’S teenagers) but I know my ideas are at variance with the Church and it pains me.

You would do no one any harm by telling them, “The Church permits a variety of natural family planning methods, though it forbids all artificial methods of contraception, but in my personal opinion, it would be best to assume when having sex that the couple is, in fact, going to have a child, since this is God’s design for sex. Persons who wish to avoid having children would do best to abstain from sex altogether, although, if grave reasons present themselves for doing so, some form of Natural Family Planning is certainly permitted by the Church.”

Where the harm comes in is when someone comes along and gives an opinion that is not only not in line with current Church thinking, but is something that the Church has never even thought of teaching at any time in its 2,000 year history.

 

[fix]

“There have to be factions among you in order that the truth may become known.” 1 Cor 11, 19

I, for one, love it when people air out views that are different than those currently proposed by the Church. How else are we supposed to learn anything? There were some folks back in the 'fifties who talked about Mass in the vernacular and eating meat on Fridays. Were they heretics?

These issues are not analogous at all. Rome has spoken. The case is closed. We are not talking about disciplines that must be obeyed, yet can be changed it needed.

Doctrines definitively proposed by the Church on faith and morals which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed. They can be defined by:
a) the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra
b) the College of Bishops gathered in council
c) taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the
Church as sententia definitive tenenda. Such doctrines are joined to Divinely Revealed truths by a. historical relationship or b. logical connection. Even though they are not proposed as formally revealed they could, by dogmatic development, one day be declared to be revealed.

ASSENT REQUIRED These doctrines require firm and definitive assent based on theological faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Summary of Categories of Belief in Professio fidei

Now, how may one hold an “opinion” that is contrary to the will of Christ? If it is contrary to Christ then why is it worthy of discussion?