Female Ordination

[bitznbitez]

It amazes me that this subject never seems to die down. Despite the overwhelming wealth of evidence stacked against womens ordination it still has legs. Go figure! I’m going to catch some flack here on this, But I can’t help but thinking that to some at least, (feminists) the priesthood is the ultimate challenge, or prize if you will.

The key is understanding feminist theology. This is commonly mistaken to mean theology done by women. Its actually something entirely different. I’ve spent a good bit of time reading it. In a nutshell it challenges every last aspect of the current church. It wants to include all that was ever excluded by the patriarchal system, it wishes to look for non patriarchal worship of the divine and in so doing brings in all the ancient faiths. It quickly goes so far as to challenge the canon itself. Once you decide the current church is erroneously patriarchal you then look to all it ever excluded as being erroneous as well and soon all the ancient heresies are the new normal.

 

[Mark121359]

The key is understanding feminist theology. This is commonly mistaken to mean theology done by women. Its actually something entirely different. I’ve spent a good bit of time reading it. In a nutshell it challenges every last aspect of the current church. It wants to include all that was ever excluded by the patriarchal system, it wishes to look for non patriarchal worship of the divine and in so doing brings in all the ancient faiths. It quickly goes so far as to challenge the canon itself. Once you decide the current church is erroneously patriarchal you then look to all it ever excluded as being erroneous as well and soon all the ancient heresies are the new normal.

Pretty scary, isn’t it?

 

[R_C]

Please don’t throw stones on me but I don’t fully understand the Church’s stance regarding Female Ordination.

As far as I know, the refusal to ordain women is on the ground that 12 apostles were all men. Jesus was also men.

Let’s see. Isreal society at that time was essentially patriarchy. If Jesus was born as woman, he would not be able to preach. He could not choose woman as apostles because they would not be allowed to preach in front of the public too.

God has no gender. However, Jesus became human inside a history and He had to follow the prevailing norm of that society.

Just imagine if Isreal society was matriarchy at the time, Jesus must be born as women. Otherwise, noone would listen to Him.

Remember that matriachy does exist in many places on earth.

Within the context of the Church, this is in fact something that can only be discussed to better understand it, but not to debate it. The issue - as others have pointed out - is not with the society, for St. Paul clearly writes:

There is not among you Jew or Greek,
there is not among you slave or free,
there is not among you male or female:
for we all are in Christ Jesus."

Surely other Christian communities seem not to refrain from the ordination of women. But this is not new. Already Tertullian (AD 200) wrote about how this was happening in some communities that had separated themselves from the Church. Other Church Fathers also write about this.

Already in the year 500 AD (approx.) the Holy See would write:

Yet we have heard with irritation that divine things have come to such lack of respect that women are encouraged to minister at the sacred altars and to perform all the things that do not belong to them, which are assigned only to the service of men.

That is the key word: some things, some offices, do not belong to women. Our Lady had a role in the life of Christ. St. Joseph had another role. s. Peter had one role, s. Mary Magdalene another.

There’s been some talk on the figure of “diaconess” in the past. Several Councils (Nicea 325 AD, Orange 441 AD, etc.) speak of this:

We have mentioned the deaconesses, who are enrolled in this position, but since they have not received any imposition of hands at all, they are surely to be numbered among the laity.

Deaconesses are certainly not to be ordained,and if there are some,they must bow their head under the blessing given to the people.

What does this tell us? That in the Church - even from the beginning - some women had very specific roles, but not the ordination of presbyter by the imposition of the hand by apostles which would also imply apostolic succession.

In fact, the Apostolic Constitutions (400 AD) specifies:

Chose as a deaconess a faithful and holy woman for the ministry of women… For we need a female deaconess for many things …] A deaconess does not bless or do any of the things priests and deacons do.

Finally, the Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of 1994 defines with a definitive decision what has always been orthodox Christian doctrine:

Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone. …] 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.

That is the end of the debate. Can women do what a male priest does? Never has the Church denied this. The Church simply states: we do not have authority to ordain women. Surely Christ had disciples who were men and women, both of which did great things. Surely throughout history we have had extroardinary saints, both men and women. Surely we have both male and female Doctors of the Church. Surely Our Lady shines as the brightest member of the Church and giving outstanding dignity to woman - a dignity that St. Paul reflects when he tells husbands to love their wives “as Christ loves the Church”, and we all know how great that love is.

But the apostolic office is meant for men, for the same reason that the divine Son, who is God, took flesh in the body of a man, and in doing so, in no way did he lower the dignity of the woman - as shown by the special role given to Our Lady in salvation (from Genesis to Revelation).

 

[edwest2]

It amazes me that this subject never seems to die down. Despite the overwhelming wealth of evidence stacked against womens ordination it still has legs. Go figure! I’m going to catch some flack here on this, But I can’t help but thinking that to some at least, (feminists) the priesthood is the ultimate challenge, or prize if you will. Once upon a time, there were no women police officers, firemen, mailmen, soldiers, fighter pilots etc. etc. etc. These have all fallen one by one. The Mt. Everest of them all is still standing, and it boils their blood that in 2013 there is still one thing they can never ever be!..And thank God for that! Feminist priests… Lord have mercy!

It is a common tactic of propagandists. Repeat the lie often enough, and, they hope, some people will believe them. Remember, there are those that are just as committed to spreading their non-belief system as we are committed to spreading the truth.

They can’t tolerate the Church. They worship the god change. The only secular sin is boredom.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mayxanh]

Thank you all for your reply.

I have to admit that, people here are very knowledgeable. I used to visit a Catholic forum in my mother tongue. Many of my questions related to catechism/faith are left unanswered

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The tendency is to talk about patriarchy as if it some kind of arbitrary invention that in no way corresponds to the real demands of human nature. As if the fact that ancient Israel (and most of the ancient world) was patriarchal is a sheer accident.

But, of course, it isn’t. And the fact that God did not upset the patriarchal order is pretty good evidence that it was, perhaps, ordained by Him from the beginning.

As a man, married to a young doctor, when I look at her every morning,** the last things** I’m thinking are:

-She shouldn’t have been educated
-She should shut her mouth around men
-She shouldn’t think for herself
-She is as a child to me

She looks upon me for strength and protection (of any kind) as needed, of course. However, if God truly intended for women to be inferior to men then I would say He did a terrible job of it. Fortunately, what God does tends to be well done… so I know that God did not make women merely as inferior playmates for men.
Tantum ergo:

Your arguments have NOTHING to do with who Jesus IS, only with who you would PREFER Him to be. . …

That is a real danger, it is a real danger especially when there is something to be gained from shaping Jesus in our image. For example, some used our faith to justify slavery… the slave-owners did that, not the slaves themselves. Similarly, some men will try to justify male domination by looking to the faith - because it appeals to the vanity. Who among us does not have a sinful shadow within that would love to order people around like a little dictator? That must be resisted.

 

[mayxanh]

Another question, please.

As I recall, in the old days, only men or boys are allowed to serve the alter but today the canon law has changed to allow women and girls.

WHY???

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

It amazes me that this subject never seems to die down. Despite the overwhelming wealth of evidence stacked against womens ordination it still has legs. Go figure! I’m going to catch some flack here on this, But I can’t help but thinking that to some at least, (feminists) the priesthood is the ultimate challenge, or prize if you will. Once upon a time, there were no women police officers, firemen, mailmen, soldiers, fighter pilots etc. etc. etc. These have all fallen one by one. The Mt. Everest of them all is still standing, and it boils their blood that in 2013 there is still one thing they can never ever be!..And thank God for that! Feminist priests… Lord have mercy!

I accept the male-only Priesthood.

What I do not and cannot accept is female inferiority, the subservience of all women to all men or the claim that women have nowhere been mistreated, or that when they have been mistreated, that such suffering was little and unimportant. Moving forward, anyone who buys into all of this is going to have a tough time gaining credibility when arguing for the male-only Priesthood.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Another question, please.

As I recall, in the old days, only men or boys are allowed to serve the alter but today the canon law has changed to allow women and girls.

WHY???

If “the Church decided it,” is enough reason for you on the male-only Priesthood then it should be enough on this matter as well, right?

 

[Della]

Another question, please.

As I recall, in the old days, only men or boys are allowed to serve the alter but today the canon law has changed to allow women and girls.

WHY???

Because the Church eliminated the minor orders of which altar servers used to be a part. At one time serving at the altar was the first step towards priesthood, but that discicpline no longer exists. Therefore, serving at the altar was opened to all lay people of all ages. Similarly, who may distribute the Eucharist also was opened to lay people, so we have both male and female extraordinary ministers of the Holy Eucharist or EMHCs, as they are called.

 

[Brendan]

Another question, please.

As I recall, in the old days, only men or boys are allowed to serve the alter but today the canon law has changed to allow women and girls.

WHY???

Altar service has always allowed lay persons to assist. But this is in emulation of the clerical role of Acolyte.

As such, it was beneficial (though not required) for males to serve.

It also was a great source of vocations, which is still recognized today.

The decree that recognized that girls may serve had this to say

In accord with the above cited instructions of the Holy See such an authorization may not, in any way, exclude men or, in particular, boys from service at the altar, nor require that priests of the diocese would make use of female altar servers, since “it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar” (Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conference, March 15, 1994, no. 2). Indeed, the obligation to support groups of altar boys will always remain, not least of all due to the well known assistance that such programs have provided since time immemorial in encouraging future priestly vocations (cf. ibid.)

With respect to whether the practice of women serving at the altar would truly be of pastoral advantage in the local pastoral situation, it is perhaps helpful to recall that the non-ordained faithful do not have a right to service at the altar, rather they are capable of being admitted to such service by the Sacred Pastors (cf. Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences, March 15, 1994, no. 4, cf. also can 228, §1, Interdicasterial Instruction Esslesiae de mysterio, August 15, 1997, no. 4, see Notitiae 34 [1998] 9-42). Therefore, in the event that Your Excellency found it opportune to authorize service of women at the altar, it would remain important to explain clearly to the faithful the nature of this innovation, lest confusion might be introduced, thereby hampering the development of priestly vocations.

adoremus.org/CDW-AltarServers.html

 

[Brendan]

What I do not and cannot accept is female inferiority, the subservience of all women to all men or the claim that women have nowhere been mistreated, or that when they have been mistreated, that such suffering was little and unimportant. Moving forward, anyone who buys into all of this is going to have a tough time gaining credibility when arguing for the male-only Priesthood.

Can I ask who on this thread has claimed the above?

Any Catholic would not agree with the above, as Mary (a woman) is recognized as the pinnacle of Creation. One cannot argue for ‘female inferiority’ while recognizing Mary as Queen of Heaven and Earth.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Can I ask who on this thread has claimed the above.

Any Catholic would not agree with the above, as Mary (a woman) is recognized as the pinnacle of Creation. One cannot argue for ‘female inferiority’ while recognizing Mary as Queen of Heaven and Earth.

We Catholics do a great job of emphasizing Mary’s very special role.

But all that is neither here nor there with regards to the way women are actually treated and/or talked about here on planet Earth.

Here’s a phrase that is going around lately, “saying you’re a Catholic because you went to Mass is like saying you’re a mechanic because you changed a tire,” or something to that effect.

I think that is a relevant quotation here, because saying you are not anti-woman does not necessarily mean that you aren’t. I mean, heck, go ask the people at Catholic Planet whether they are anti-woman. By no means would they say that and yet, read some of the stuff on that website for yourself - describing in full detail the exact manner in which women are to to dress, how they are to keep their hair, the ever-expanding lists of jobs unsuited for them, their requirement to keep silent, never to teach men, etc.

Many of these people will focus on spiritual equality. That is the greatest cop out for the abuse of women. It’s like when chattel slaves were being told by their Christian slavemasters, “don’t worry about us using you like property, because you will be equal in Heaven!”

I encourage you to read the entirety of the forum and some of the conversations we are having about “male headship” and “feminism,” (which is just a codeword for abortion and contraception because women have never, ever been systematically oppressed).

But here are a few posts to check out from this thread:

Mark121359:

It amazes me that this subject never seems to die down. Despite the overwhelming wealth of evidence stacked against womens ordination it still has legs. Go figure! I’m going to catch some flack here on this, But I can’t help but thinking that to some at least, (feminists) the priesthood is the ultimate challenge, or prize if you will. Once upon a time, there were no women police officers, firemen, mailmen, soldiers, fighter pilots etc. etc. etc. These have all fallen one by one. The Mt. Everest of them all is still standing, and it boils their blood that in 2013 there is still one thing they can never ever be!..And thank God for that! Feminist priests… Lord have mercy!

Poster sounds pretty upset about that!

Or how about this post:

sw85:

The tendency is to talk about patriarchy as if it some kind of arbitrary invention that in no way corresponds to the real demands of human nature. As if the fact that ancient Israel (and most of the ancient world) was patriarchal is a sheer accident.

But, of course, it isn’t. And the fact that God did not upset the patriarchal order is pretty good evidence that it was, perhaps, ordained by Him from the beginning

Patriarchy is divinely ordained. Male dominance is nothing personal, we’re just doing God’s will. Convenient excuse.

 

[edwest2]

I accept the male-only Priesthood.

What I do not and cannot accept is female inferiority, the subservience of all women to all men or the claim that women have nowhere been mistreated, or that when they have been mistreated, that such suffering was little and unimportant. Moving forward, anyone who buys into all of this is going to have a tough time gaining credibility when arguing for the male-only Priesthood.

Then stay away from men. Simple.

What do radical feminists want? Abortion - kill your baby in the womb, it’s OK, artificial contraception - who needs a man except for sex, then dump him.

The Church never taught female inferiority, the radical Marxist Destructionists did. The number one job for women today is secretary, just as it was in the 1950s.

They created a new bible for women. The commandments:

1. Being a housewife is slavery. You are Woman! Roar! Thou shalt get a career!
2. Secretary? Status is more important! Big money is more important! Get POWER!
3. Though shalt overthrow the male-dominated world! Woman, not man, shall rule!
4. The wisdom of woman is greater than the so-called “wisdom” of those useless - except for orgasms - men. You will use them for that purpose only.
5. Men are the devil! And you will live by our every word and every instruction!

Meanwhile, if anyone’s interested, I know a guy who’s got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, now at a reduced price.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Della]

We Catholics do a great job of emphasizing Mary’s very special role.

But all that is neither here nor there with regards to the way women are actually treated and/or talked about here on planet Earth.

Here’s a phrase that is going around lately, “saying you’re a Catholic because you went to Mass is like saying you’re a mechanic because you changed a tire,” or something to that effect.

I think that is a relevant quotation here, because saying you are not anti-woman does not necessarily mean that you aren’t. I mean, heck, go ask the people at Catholic Planet whether they are anti-woman. By no means would they say that and yet, read some of the stuff on that website for yourself - describing in full detail the exact manner in which women are to to dress, how they are to keep their hair, the ever-expanding lists of jobs unsuited for them, their requirement to keep silent, never to teach men, etc.

Many of these people will focus on spiritual equality. That is the greatest cop out for the abuse of women. It’s like when chattel slaves were being told by their Christian slavemasters, “don’t worry about us using you like property, because you will be equal in Heaven!”

I encourage you to read the entirety of the forum and some of the conversations we are having about “male headship” and “feminism,” (which is just a codeword for abortion and contraception because women have never, ever been systematically oppressed).

These opinions by Catholic Planet members are not those of the Church they claim to be speaking for. There are fundamentalists and busy bodies in every part of human existence be it religious or secular. Ever hear of the PC police? Just as bad, but with a different agenda. No one should be demanding that others do, think, behave according to personal standards nor should anyone be repressed no matter their gender.

But here are a few posts to check out from this thread:

Poster sounds pretty upset about that!

Or how about this post:

Patriarchy is divinely ordained. Male dominance is nothing personal, we’re just doing God’s will. Convenient excuse.

The truth is Catholic women were just as involved in business as their male counterparts and still are, if that’s what they want. Women belonged to guilds in the Middle Ages. It wasn’t until the Reformation that women were told to sit down and shut up. It was when men, of their own accord, broke from the Catholic understanding of the roles of men and women, imposing their own ideas ripped out of context from St. Paul’s writings, that women were truly oppressed.

Hierarchy of authority does not give anyone the right to oppress others. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, which means giving his life for her not demanding she obey him as a slave. A woman deigns to obey out of love, not out of demand for it, for her dignity is equal to her husband’s in every respect. She advises him and makes decisions that affect the whole family, but that’s how it ought to be–both husband and wife working together to create a family. It’s not about rights, it’s about love and the tender demands of love.

 

[twoangels]

Please don’t throw stones on me but I don’t fully understand the Church’s stance regarding Female Ordination.

As far as I know, the refusal to ordain women is on the ground that 12 apostles were all men. Jesus was also men.

Let’s see. Isreal society at that time was essentially patriarchy. If Jesus was born as woman, he would not be able to preach. He could not choose woman as apostles because they would not be allowed to preach in front of the public too.

Isreal was God’s chosen people. In simple terms, He gave them their laws and much of their structure. There is certainly a more complicated story there. A human element does play a role in it, but the patriarchical history is not an outside element. There were plenty of matriartical religions.

God has no gender.

God has no sex because He does not copulate or reproduce. In terms of his masculinity though, He is only correctly identified as masculine: He is an outside power that takes active action to create. That act of creation isn’t reproduction. We are not Gods, and we are only called His children through adoption. The term adoption is used to ephasis that we are not his begotten children. We are not little gods. His only begotten Son is Jesus. Jesus’ conception was not sexual. I didn’t involve copulation. He is not a seperate God. He is one with the Father. The mystery here is not easy to grasp, but what we can able to understand we should.

God is male because creation occurs outside of Him. Creation did not grow out of Him. Earth is not His womb. Rather, He reveals himself to us as our adoptive, loving and merciful Father.

This Fatherly imagry is what makes us monotheists. Feminine imagery leads to pantheism. This is why matriartical religions tend to involve dabbling in the occult. Since the feminine imagry moves to perceiving ourselves as plants growing from a mother’s womb, these religions tend to direct themselves toward finding our divine powers (as if we had spiritual embilical cords.

God instituted the religion of the ancient Isrealites and He instituted Catholicism through Jesus Christ. Our religion is patriartical because our God is an all power, omnipresent, all knowning entity that exists outside of time and space and is not a part of the universe, but rather is the creator of the universe. That idea is a masculine image, not a feminine (receptive through sex, carrying in the womb, giving birth) image.

Rather femininity and the Church is the feminine imagry. While we have men as priests because they represent Christ and thus God, our Church is spoken as “she.” She is the bride of Christ. All of humanity must open itself and be receptive to God’s Divine Grace. A receiver is a female image, and thus is the Church. As such, God could be said to be more rather than less masculine than men.

 

[twoangels]

I am not quite convinced. If Jesus chose a women apostles, she would definitely not be allowed to preach. You know, at the time, the place of women is inside the household, not in front of the public. **Noone listen to her **and she **might be stoned to death for going against the tradition **(women stays home)

But notice, at the beginning of the infancy narratives, you have the contrast between the High Priest, Zachariah, being visited by the Angel Gabriel in the temple. His faith is lacking, and thus he loses his voice. The Angel then appears to the Blessed Virgin and she is immediately greated as being full of grace (as if it were her name). It is an image of the Angel kneeling down not only before an inferior human, but a female. When Christ’s dies, only his female followers (besides St. John) stay at his side. When he rises from the dead, it is Mary of Magdelia who witnesses to the Apostles of His ressurection.

Perhaps it is because of our natural receptivity that makes us more attracted to religion, makes us cling to Christ and makes us great teachers of the faith. We have a lot to teach men, and our roles in the Church are not always appreciated in society or in the Church. It is because of that lack of appreciation, that I believe that leads us to want to gender neutralize everything.

 

[Mark121359]

But here are a few posts to check out from this thread:

Originally Posted by **Mark121359 **

Not upset at all about what you highlighted. You haven’t listened to Mother Angelica much have you! Boy, you think I’m hard on feminists and liberals. WOW! God Love Her! But that’s a story for another day. What I am upset about is the continued call for women priests, by that’s right feminists and liberal catholics and lapsed catholics and cafeteria catholics. The Church makes it crystal clear it has ***no ***authority to do so. So when they ( women priest advocates) keep hammering away and ignoring what the Church has declared, to me at least there motive is questionable and down right devious IMHO. It’s like they’re saying to the Pope; “We don’t believe you! How dare you make that declaration! We’re not going to stand for this!” Some of them detest and completely ignore papal authority! So yes, I stand by what I said in that post.

 

[sw85]

As a man, married to a young doctor, when I look at her every morning,** the last things** I’m thinking are:

-She shouldn’t have been educated
-She should shut her mouth around men
-She shouldn’t think for herself
-She is as a child to me

These are meritless feminist lies about patriarchy that in no way correspond to historical reality.

She looks upon me for strength and protection (of any kind) as needed, of course.

That, on the other hand, is exactly what patriarchy is.

However, if God truly intended for women to be inferior to men then I would say He did a terrible job of it. Fortunately, what God does tends to be well done… so I know that God did not make women merely as inferior playmates for men.

Inferiority has nothing to do with it. Unless you think hierarchical relations always and everywhere imply some sort of ontological defect in the ones subject to rulership. Are you inferior to Obama?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Hmmm.

I wonder how it is that I, a modern and successful career woman, have no problem understanding the distinction between equality and role, between real worth and human function, between spiritual status and ecclesial position, but some men on this thread (or perhaps just one man? ) blurs those distinctions.

If by some weird (impossible) mistake, the Church were to declare tomorrow that she got it all wrong, and really female ordination is now on the table, I might have to become an Anglican or something. (Wait: that might not work, depending on whether it was High Anglican or Low Anglican. Maybe I’d have to become a Conservative Jew.)

It has nothing to do with subservience. It’s just WEIRD having a woman pretend to be in persona Christi. It is a particular function that the all-male ministerial priesthood enjoys: to substitute for Christ Himself. We are visual, concrete people, created by God Himself to be so. We were created to derive from the concrete and the embodied. Throughout the history of God’s people, He used the concrete to make His presence known. It doesn’t mean that God, pure spirit, is physiologically male; it means that He Himself chose to reveal Himself in the terms of fatherhood, because the roles of a father were the roles that He knew His children needed to be drawn to Him. Similarly, the sonship of Jesus, through the Incarnation, was a concrete, embodied, visual, way to illustrate the complete self-donation of God to humankind, in history.

Understood in this way, patriarchy is not something evil. In the spiritual realm, it’s a way of understanding order, generosity, and source. Patriarchy in the spiritual sense and patriarchy in the political sense are not interchangeable.

Spiritual worth is separate from ecclesial function. (“God is no respector of persons.”) It doesn’t mean that I look on women as “less holy” than priests. That’s absurd. I know plenty of very holy women (lay and religious), and plenty of holy lay men. Religiously speaking, I guess you could say that women “formed” me more, spiritually, than priests did, but then that may be true for an awful lot of Catholics of both genders, if they went to Catholic schools where they were taught by fantastic religious. However, ultimately, the whole Church formed me: religious sisters, lay men and women, including my peers, and priests (diocesan and religious) whom I respected and still need and respect, and most importantly, God Himself – through those people and through His instituttion, the Church. I cannot name which person, in which role, did “more” for me. There was no “hierarchy” of importance.

So I would have to conclude by questioning who’s hung up on the artifice of “hierarchy?” It seems to me that sometimes it’s well-meaning but confused men, led astray by secular paradigms and rhetoric, and also by some women who were completely 'catechized" by the secular modern culture.

As for marriage, the Church encourages mutual service and mutual love between spuses. If there are particular radical traditionalists on extremist websites, the Roman clerical hierarchy is not responsible for their distortions of interpretation.