how Catholic women feel about no ordination of women

  • Thread starter Thread starter namax91
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As a married man, I will respond on behalf of my wife:

The priesthood should be open to women.

The only statement she adds to that is that the Church would be run better.
 
God made the female form with more beauty than the male form and gave women the ability to bring new life into the world. And God gave other gifts to men.
 
Is your wife Catholic?
All the way through from the beginning. Twelve years of Catholic school, too. Still goes to Church every Sunday, goes to Confession, other services, taught CCD. Yep, Catholic.

I don’t argue with her about it because I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other.
 
As a married man, I will respond on behalf of my wife:

The priesthood should be open to women.

The only statement she adds to that is that the Church would be run better.
So it probably makes no difference to her that the bread and wine would stay bread and wine, and confessing to a female priestess would not result in the person’s sins being forgiven. Or has she not considered this?
 
What the secular world/media doesn’t understand is that by not having women priests it is not diminishing women’s roles or importance nor meant to be a way of saying women are inferior or anything like that.
 
All the way through from the beginning. Twelve years of Catholic school, too. Still goes to Church every Sunday, goes to Confession, other services, taught CCD. Yep, Catholic.

I don’t argue with her about it because I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other.
Interesting. Since she is a faithful member of the Church, I would reference her to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis by Pope John Paul II regarding the reservation of priestly ordination to men only.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html
 
Yes, it’s a generalization that women are prettier and more beautifully formed than men. But it’s also generally true.
Women spend significantly more time and resources conforming their appearance to society’s idea of beauty, because they are expected to do so and face social (and career) consequences if they do not. If men spent their lives learning to apply make up that doesn’t look like make up but makes their skin appear more even, alters the apparent shape of their face, and otherwise downplays unattractive and enhances attactive features; if men spent their lives learning which clothes enhance their physical appearance in the appropriate fashion for each occasion; if men spent their lives learning that the right hair cut and the right underwear subtly affect how people respond to them in even professional situations; if men spent their lives expected to obsess over their diets in order to maintain a socially acceptable figure; if men were expected to pay careful attention to regular use of products that brighten and moisturise and smooth their skin and hair: if all this was the case, you would probably find the men were as ‘pretty and beautifully formed’ as women.

This kind of attitude is why nuns go into habits: it is patronising and objectifying to suggest that “being more beautiful” is a unique gift given to women by God, especially when you appear to be suggesting that this in place of the sort of gifts men have, which presumably involve actual aspects of their personalities and abilities? The Church does not say that women are less suitable for leadership roles, that they are less good at leading, than men: that is not what the lack of ordination of women is about.
 
The first person to see Jesus raised from the dead was a women.
The first to bring that good news to the others.

Jesus then gives the keys to the kingdom to a man.

Could this be a balance of some sort? That both are included to be “fishers of men”?

What was the significance of Mary being the first to see Jesus and bring this news to the others?
Or was it just because women of that time were the ones that would go to prepare the body and so it was just a coincidence? 🤷
 
The first person to see Jesus raised from the dead was a women.
The first to bring that good news to the others.

Jesus then gives the keys to the kingdom to a man.

Could this be a balance of some sort? That both are included to be “fishers of men”?

What was the significance of Mary being the first to see Jesus and bring this news to the others?
Or was it just because women of that time were the ones that would go to prepare the body and so it was just a coincidence? 🤷
There are probably many layers to this story. Notice that the women were openly weeping at the foot of the cross (along with John), and going to prepare the body, thus fulling their religious duties, but the rest of the apostles were in hiding, and not going to help move the stone away for the women. The women also had no trouble believing the Angel, but Peter and John had to run out and check for themselves, also Thomas. 😉 So do you think these actions might be somewhat reflective of human nature and the differences between the sexes? Looking around at the disparity in numbers between the sexes filling the pews, and in ministry in the parishes, I would surmise there is at least some truth to the observation, that women are more active in their faith/spiritual life. So this layer of the story might be highlighting that.
 
:St Paul’s advice about whether women are allowed to teach men in church:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)
 
That’s interesting that you found the article offensive. I am relatively new to Catholicism and heard many negative opinions from very anti-Catholic members of my family. After everything I heard, Pope Francis’ words were refreshing to me. I also read Theology of the Body and appreciated it. It all depends on prespective, I suppose. 🙂
If you noticed I was reacting to the birth control link. I swear that Birth Control is the Koch Brothers of conservative Catholics, something that they use to blame all the ills.

And I am not a fan of Pope Francis or his words toward women. I think that he is the poster child for benevolent sexism. blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/2013/04/02/benevolent-sexism/
 
Jesus appointed males as they stand ‘IN PERSONA CHRISTI’. Was Jesus female or male? I don’t want female priests EVER! (and am extremely uncomfortable with female EMHCs and altar servers).
 
Jesus appointed males as they stand ‘IN PERSONA CHRISTI’. Was Jesus female or male? I don’t want female priests EVER! (and am extremely uncomfortable with female EMHCs and altar servers).
Are you also against female lawyers, doctors, CEOs, Presidents, etc.? Because I find that people who tend to be most adverse to womenpriests tend to support traditional gender roles.
 
Amen! Obedience is best.
The problem is that Catholics are called to obey their ecclesial superiors, i.e. the ordained ministry, who are all men. Therefore, all women are called to obey some men, even cardinals have to obey the pope, who is a man.

If there was a class of women in the church who we had to obey (aside of course from our mothers) the playing field would be more equal.

But as it stands today, in a practical sense, men are the ones telling us what to do from a hierarchical standpoint. Priests are not heirarchically bound to obey any woman, but women can be bound to obey a man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top