Female ordination, refutation help?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alyssa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
hthrlu:
To Jim G: I appreciate your post - and it is helpful. I would like to ask if you could elaborate a little bit.
Click to expand...
Heather—
I suppose my statement could be amended to say that a female priest would force Jesus to be the wrong sex, rather than the wrong gender. However, I really believe that gender does entail more than just sex, and that it is a more basic part of our identity than simply the associated psychological characteristics.

It is true that any human person may exhibit a range of personality traits, some of which may be commonly characterized as feminine or masculine. As you said, such traits need not be associated exclusively with either sex, and we do in fact find both types of traits present even in a single individual. Yet, the ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ traits do tend to be grouped commonly enough by sex as to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to get considerable mileage from a phrase such as “girly men!”

I don’t really consider men and women to be interchangeable units except for their biological functions. Sex is at root a way of relating, and our ways of relating extend from the physical to the emotional, psychological and spiritual realms. It is that totality of ways of relating to male or female persons that seems to be summed up in the word ‘gender.’ We do relate to other people as male or female persons. Even in prayer, we relate to God as men or women, mothers and fathers, widows and widowers, priests and nuns, single men or women. And even in heaven we will be men and women—not sexless or genderless. And that’s a good thing. I think that gender is a part of our personhood, and because it is, it is important for one who acts in the person of Christ to have the proper gender.

It always struck me as odd that in Elizabethan times, the female parts in plays were played by men, because women were not allowed to be actors. While I understand the historical reasons, the “imaging” is just all wrong. A female person should be portrayed by a female actor. And when it comes to the priesthood, it is even more critical, since the priest is called, not particularly to act the part, but to be the part. It is a truism that in the sacraments it is really Jesus acting through the priest. The priest is not required to act the part, but to be the part, or rather, to allow Christ to use him so that Christ can act.

Some theologians in trying to explain the male priesthood have made reference to something like ‘correct imaging’ or correct iconography,’ but that seems to me insufficient. It is more a matter of being than of imaging—of letting Jesus be who he is.

Anyway, that’s a bit of elaboration. I think that DianJo makes some very good points as well with respect to the “spousal” and marital imagery involved.
 
I’m going to speak to this issue from a practical, rather than a theological position. I studied to be a minister, and I am a woman. When I became a Catholic, I knew I would have to set that particular dream aside. Honestly, it was tough. However, I did notice a few things during my quest for a job as an Associate Pastor. First, the jobs were mostly given to men. In spite of the fact that the Assemblies of God does allow women to be pastors. The women who were Associate Pastors, were, in large part youth ministers or music ministers who were daughters or spouses of the senior pastor. Or the women were co-pastors with their husbands. When ministry opportunites came up with the youth pastor I volunteered under, the leadership of the task always went to a male. I don’t think he was even aware of the slight, and would have listed reasons that had nothing to do with my gender, but sometimes I wondered if it wasn’t an unconscious prejudice. That would be true in the Catholic church if women were priests. You could have two priests, one male, one female, offering the Scarament of Reconciliation and I would be willing to bet the male priest would have a greatly longer line than the female priest. Men just don’t like being under the headship of a woman. Just as the man is supposed to be the head of the home, so they believe he should be the head of the church. And I don’t mean to descibe that headship to imply the woman is a doormat. Just as Donald Trump has the final say in what happens in his orginization, so the husband has the final say. Ever try to get something done by committee? The buck must stop somewhere. That’s just a practical business practice. Also, I wonder, if women are allowed to be priests, does that mean we also have to allow men to be nuns? If the purpose in allowing women to be priests is to provide equal rights, then men would have to be allowed to be nuns as well. :bigyikes: After all, fair is fair!
 
Also, I wonder, if women are allowed to be priests, does that mean we also have to allow men to be nuns? If the purpose in allowing women to be priests is to provide equal rights, then men would have to be allowed to be nuns as well. After all, fair is fair!

And male nuns must be called “Sister”, while female priests must be called “Father”.
 
40.png
hthrlu:
Women aren’t equal now - there is a large part of the church that is closed off to them - and it happens to be the part of the church that is the governing part. If I wanted to be a part of the governing body of the church, I can’t do it because I am not male. If I wanted to make a difference or help protect the church or be involved in the decision making process and be a part of church history - there is no avenue for me to do that. (this is probably the american part of me…LOL).
Click to expand...
Untrue.

The only part of the Church closed to women are the ordained offices of the deacon and priest. That’s it. Those offices are also closed to most men since most men do not have a genuine calling to ordained life.

All Christians - male and female - share in Christ’s priestly ministry. From the CCC:

II. THE LAY FAITHFUL

897 "The term ‘laity’ is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in Holy Orders and those who belong to a religious state approved by the Church. That is, the faithful, who by Baptism are incorporated into Christ and integrated into the People of God, are made sharers in their particular way in the priestly, prophetic, and kingly office of Christ, and have their own part to play in the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the World."430

The vocation of lay people

898 "By reason of their special vocation it belongs to the laity to seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God’s will. . . . It pertains to them in a special way so to illuminate and order all temporal things with which they are closely associated that these may always be effected and grow according to Christ and maybe to the glory of the Creator and Redeemer."431

899 The initiative of lay Christians is necessary especially when the matter involves discovering or inventing the means for permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian doctrine and life. This initiative is a normal element of the life of the Church:

Lay believers are in the front line of Church life; for them the Church is the animating principle of human society. Therefore, they in particular ought to have an ever-clearer consciousness not only of belonging to the Church, but of being the Church, that is to say, the community of the faithful on earth under the leadership of the Pope, the common Head, and of the bishops in communion with him. They are the Church.432

900 Since, like all the faithful, lay Christians are entrusted by God with the apostolate by virtue of their Baptism and Confirmation, they have the right and duty, individually or grouped in associations, to work so that the divine message of salvation may be known and accepted by all men throughout the earth. This duty is the more pressing when it is only through them that men can hear the Gospel and know Christ. Their activity in ecclesial communities is so necessary that, for the most part, the apostolate of the pastors cannot be fully effective without it.433

The participation of lay people in Christ’s priestly office

901 "Hence the laity, dedicated as they are to Christ and anointed by the Holy Spirit, are marvelously called and prepared so that even richer fruits of the Spirit maybe produced in them. For all their works, prayers, and apostolic undertakings, family and married life, daily work, relaxation of mind and body, if they are accomplished in the Spirit - indeed even the hardships of life if patiently born - all these become spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. In the celebration of the Eucharist these may most fittingly be offered to the Father along with the body of the Lord. And so, worshipping everywhere by their holy actions, the laity consecrate the world itself to God, everywhere offering worship by the holiness of their lives."434

902 In a very special way, parents share in the office of sanctifying "by leading a conjugal life in the Christian spirit and by seeing to the Christian education of their children."435

903 Lay people who possess the required qualities can be admitted permanently to the ministries of lector and acolyte.436 When the necessity of the Church warrants it and when ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply for certain of their offices, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside over liturgical prayers, to confer Baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion in accord with the prescriptions of law."437

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Here we go with a sensitive subject. Sorry if I tick anyone off, but this in good faith.

The popular “feminists” of the past forty years were not true feminists at all. They were “me-tooists”. They rejected the female archetype and were actually anti-feminist. Rather than elevate feminine qualities and roles, they squashed them and embraced male qualities and roles.

The church teaches only the truth; women and men are in fact distinct, different, yet 100% equal. Their different natures place them in separate roles.

Priests are pretty much servants. This is symbolized on Holy Thursday when we celebrate priesthood as they wash our feet at mass. Many of the orders take vows of poverty and all in the west take vows of chastity. If you properly re-name the debate as “a battle to become servant of all” there is no argument and no so-called feminist takers.

Until governments have taken over, and in previous generations of our own societies, the sisters & nuns ran/administered many of the Catholic hospitals and schools to name two. This was when a hospital administrator was seen as a vocation, not an overpaid aspiration of the greedy, and when the patient’s dignity and care was ahead of budgets and contracts, and when the sister teachers cared about the Catechism. Yes there were scandals, there always are. In any case the Catholic Church never saw these roles as derogatory to women. These were extremely community oriented, just as much as the priestly duties, just different.

Because the media doesn’t have a clue as to what it’s talking about, these points are seldom addressed.
 
More importantly than men getting to be nuns, we’d have to be allowed to be mothers. Remember, the most perfect human being who has ever lived was a woman and mother; men physically can’t even approach her.

I disagree with FCEGM that males somehow represent God more closely. I don’t think a male can represent God any better than a woman, because God possesses characteristics of both male and female; God made all humanity in His image, not just men. We can represent the Incarnation, Jesus, better because that was God expressing taking and expressing the male identity, and that’s what’s important for the priesthood, but in an absolute sense we are no closer to God. Again, the most perfect, Godly human being was a woman, the Virgin Mary, and we can only wish to be as close to God in our lifetimes as she was.

The priesthood was given to men, and that’s the long and short of it. We could go into the reasons why, but in the end it’s no different than men having beards and (most) women not, and women having uteruses and men not. Sadly we live in a time and culture that is even destroying these gifts that God gave us to compliment eachother and glorify Him, thinking we know better than His plan. The Church is trying to protect our individuality, the gifts that God has given each of us, and protecting sexuality and the priesthood is part of this. Just look at how staunchly the Church defends motherhood when it comes under attack to see that its attention is not purely male-focused.
 
I have been re-reading Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic letter on dignity. I haven’t finished it yet, but I will keep an open mind until I am finished with it.

That being said…thank you all for replying. You are certainly giving me a lot to think about. I do have a few questions.

Everyone has talked a lot about the different vocations of men and women, and our complementary natures, etc. What does this mean? I understand that we’re different - my husband and I are like night and day (coincedentally - he’s almost exactly like my sister, even though they’re opposite sex). What are the vocations and natures that God gave us? I know this is going to sound cliche, but I have this image of women being “barefoot and pregnant” as the general consensus of women’s vocation. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with having children - my husband and I are going to start trying this fall. That isn’t the only thing I want in life. In some way, reducing my whole purpose on earth to physical reproduction feels very demeaning. My mind and my heart don’t matter, as long as I reproduce and give birth?

I know that’s pretty extreme, and it probably looks much more extreme in text than it would if I were talking to you all over a cup of coffee - I am not trying to flame this thread and I appreciate all of the answers. You all are helping me very much.

I guess, it boils down to wanting somewhat of a road map to what a man’s vocation is? What is a woman’s vocation? What (other than fitting together like a jigsaw puzzle) are our complementary natures? What part of my everyday and spiritual life am I equipped for that my husband isn’t?

Thank you all for your help!

Heather
 
I’ve heard it said that every man’s vocation is fatherhood and every women’s vocation is motherhood. Not necessarily that we must all become biological fathers or mothers–that is always a gift, not a right. But rather that each of us relates to at least some others in our lives in a way similar to the relationship of fatherhood or motherhood.

PS–Barefoot is optional.

(Sorry-I couldn’t resist!)
 
This image of women as “just mothers” seems a very negative image to your point of view. I would take a look at some of the things posted again because it seems to me you have an undercurrent of feminazi ideas influencing you.
Women and Men are different, and it is something beautiful. It is not just the ability to have kids or a physical difference.
Embrace the beauty of being a woman and revel in it. It is a beautiful thing to be a woman a gift from God, enjoy it. As men should do likewise. Feminazi’s teach differently, they teach a disdain for feminimity, or even mainstream feminism and have really taught many women to dislike being women. As if being female is something negative and it is better to be like a man.

My vocation right now is to be a good father to my kids. I will be a good example and do my best. Anything else is a gift but I think it would be very wrong for me to want to be a Nun or a Mother(that is what my wife can do). I have a beautiful vocation. It might not get me in the history books, but I will make a difference in my kids lives.
 
on the topic of Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand,

she is coming to Speak at Seton Hall University in South Orange New Jersey tommorow, April 12, 2005

Join renowned author Dr. Alice von Hildebrand as she talks on “The Privilege of Being a Woman,” plumbing the depths of the role of women in the modern day, and laying out the roots of feminism. This event is a must-hear, touching on some of the most hotly debated questions of our times. Her lecture will take place at 7 p.m. in McNulty Hall Auditorium — admission is free and all are welcome!

For more information, call (973) 275-2150.

Brought to you by Campus Ministry in co-sponsorship with Chi Upsilon Sigma National Latin Sorority, Inc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top