Issue with Ordaining Women

[Tis_Bearself]

The correspondence between Pope JPII and Cardinal Willibrands, and the Archbishop of Canterbury on women priests is here.

https://www.womenpriests.org/correspondence-between-canterbury-and-rome-1984-1986-a-further-exchange-of-letters-took-place-between-robert-runcie-archbishop-of-canterbury-pope-john-paul-ii-and-cardinal-jan-willebrands/

The Archbishop gave theological answers which the Vatican rejected on the grounds that "the arguments do not negotiate the manifold theological issues which this matter raises. "

 

[Tis_Bearself]

As Catholics we don’t believe that the distinction between male and female is purely a matter of anatomy.

I think you would be better off framing arguments in terms of “The Church teaches…” on this subject.

What individual Catholics actually believe about men, women, and gender is all over the map.

 

[Brendan]

I admire your stance on this that you are loyal to your leaders. I was just wondering if there was anything that you, as seasoned Catholics, knew regarding this.

The authority that Christ gave the Church is not unlimited.

If the Church never received the authority from Christ to do something, it does not have the authority. It can only pass on the teachings that is received, no more, no less.

The Church, for example, cannot make up a new Sacrament, even if large groups of people call for it.

Nor can it change the conditions of a Sacrament, it cannot decide that vodka and caviar are valid matter for the Eucharist. That is nothing against vodka or caviar, it is simply that they cannot be used as Sacramental matter.

To turn that around, where would the Church have gotten authority to ordain women? When did Christ give the Church permission to do so?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

StJemma:

I am a bit dismayed that women aren’t allowed to be placed in these roles simply based on the difference of anatomical parts.

In your logic, there’s essentially no distinction between men and women, except, as you say, anatomical parts.

This is a very important point. As Catholics we don’t believe that the distinction between male and female is purely a matter of anatomy. We beleive that there are fundamental differences in the very nature and being between males and females.

In philosophy this is what is called the ontic nature (the factual reality of being) of the human soul. Humans are not simply the physical manifestation of anatomy, but also are united with a soul that is also male or female if you would. This is one on the reasons why a person that undergoes female to male surgery is not able to be ordained even if they’ve tried to alter their anatomy. Their true nature is what God created them as and not whatever a person believes is true or how they try to modify part of their being.

This is important since the sacrament of Holy Orders makes an ontological change (i.e. fundamental change of being} and as such ordination is not purely a matter of granting authority by human agency. As part of that, the person to be ordained has to have the correct nature to start with.

The above is the reason I wholeheartedly agree with the church when it comes to the women priest issue or even women’s roles period.

Men and women are not the same. We are different. And, as I woman, I do not feel the least bit diminished by that fact.

 

[PickyPicky]

The correspondence between Pope JPII and Cardinal Willibrands, and the Archbishop of Canterbury on women priests is here.

Thank you — that is interesting. I see that, if this is the correspondence referred to, @poche was mistaken in thinking the archbishop’s reply a sociological one. As you say, the reply was theological, although, not unexpectedly, it was theologically unconvincing from the cardinal’s point of view.

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve read that the reason women are not allowed to be placed in these roles is because Jesus didn’t choose any women to be his apostles. Besides this, is there any other reasons for it?

@StJemma,

You might be interested in reading Sara Butler’s fine book The Catholic Priesthood and Women: A Guide to Understanding the Teaching of the Church, in which she discusses the historical and theological dimensions of the question of gender and ordination from a solidly orthodox Catholic perspective.

 

[StJemma]

Oh, no, you are right; women do engage in pedophilia as well (referring to the female teachers sleeping with their male students). So it does happen. But, like you said, there are “dozens” of women who do that, as compared to “hundreds” of men who do. (As a prosecutor, I see the numbers.) This is why I said the “likelihood” is “low” for women to become pedophiles.

And I didn’t insult anyone on here with their opinions (even if I didn’t agree with them) so I am unsure how calling me a braggart would a) enhance your argument, b) bring me closer to your faith, and c) enhance yourself spiritually. I have not torn anyone down, so I don’t understand why I would receive a comment like this in response. And perhaps you are correct - perhaps I do battle with the issue of pride. But I dare say it looks like you may as well.

I am certainly proud of my accomplishments, and I specifically listed them to show that women can accomplish so much if allowed to. I did it to bolster my argument, although I do see now that it wasn’t a persuasive one to some.

 

[StJemma]

Thank you so much for your insight. It was especially nice hearing from someone who also came from the EC background as well. And way to go with your accomplishments! I do see women can be leaders in the church, without having to have the title “priest.” Thank you!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There are a lot of accomplished women on here.

Accomplishments don’t count for much in a discussion about religion, unless it’s some issue of canon law and you’re a canon lawyer, or an issue regarding the sacraments and you are an ordained priest, or an issue regarding the Carmelite Order and you are a member of the order, etc. The Catholic Church is all about humility.

You’re a new poster, so to lead with your resume is a bit weird, especially on a hot button issue. (If you had looked up all the dozens of past threads on this, you’d see it was a hot button issue, if you weren’t already aware. ) I’m pretty familiar with lawyers in particular doing this (women and men) on forums all over the place including here, but it’s unnecessary and detracts from your arguments as well as causing others to react negatively to you in the first instance.

If you hang around here and continue to post, people will eventually learn naturally, via your posts about all the stuff you may have done in your life. (And many of them won’t give two hoots.)

You’re a prosecutor et cetera and have to persuade juries, so I’m sure you get what I’m trying to say.

 

[StJemma]

Okay, I understand now. I see where you’re coming from; when I read your statement that the “Catholic Church is about humility” it makes sense. With that mindset of coming from an origin of humility, I can see how I posed my question would appear to be weird.

And I do sincerely apologize in my ignorance; from a personal standpoint I really was not trying to stir the pot and make people upset with the question. I, very truly, just want to learn. I really wasn’t trying to strike up arguments. I do hope most of my responses to comments have reflected my intent in not doing that.

And you are quite right! I should not have led with the “I’m a lawyer” bit. I forget sometimes that my profession does not have the best reputation for humility, honesty, and pacificity! I do see how my leading with that would put people already on the defensive. Because, really, who wants to deal with a lawyer? I know I sure don’t.

Thanks for your cordial response and helping me learn more. I hope I have at least persuaded you that I am not entirely like most lawyers you have known.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

No problem, sorry if I sounded harsh but we do get a lot of trolls around holiday time when the kids are on school break.
Since you posted back and engaged in the discussion instead of doing the hit-and-run act that trolls generally do, it appears that you are a good faith poster.

I’m one of the many lawyers on here myself, so welcome, fellow lawyer.

 

[InThePew]

I had also pondered gathering more information about canon law and how that works too (as I think that’s incredibly interesting to have laws that are completely religious based — since our U.S. laws are not due to a separation of church and state).

Think of it (in very basic terms at least) as being like the rule of a club - any organisation which is large enough needs rules in order to regulate its practises and membership. In some very large and complex organisations (think the the military) this becomes, in effect, a legal system in itself complete with tribunals, judges and penalties (amongst other things). While canon law comes in for a lot of flack, often because laws are seen as being stifling and negative, it is in fact empowering if understood and applied in the right way.

As far as your original question is concerned, probably the best answer is that of Pope Francis who said “don’t confuse function with dignity”. Just because women can’t be ordained shouldn’t mean that they’re in anyway less equal or inferior. Many significant saints in the church have been women and certainly, the considerable work down by women throughout the Church is absolutely essential.

 

[Mintaka]

The interesting bit is that, in Eden, Adam was assigned to “tend and guard” the land, in exactly the same Hebrew words used to describe what a priest was to do at the Temple.

Eve, OTOH, was to act as Adam’s 'ezer, his “help” or “ally.” This is the same word used to describe allied kings, David’s allies, God acting to help and save Israel, and so on. It’s a very flexible job to be 'ezer to Adam, but it’s a holy job.

Both the man and the woman sinned in connection to their basic assignments, so it’s not surprising that things got so messed up.

But anyway… some jobs are shared between women and men, but not the priesthood.

So this is one of those “in the beginning” things, from before the Fall – just like marriage. It’s not insulting, and it’s not something that can change with time or culture.

 

[Reverent_Howler]

I think the Lutherans were experimenting with “Deaconesses” at one time. How did that work out?

 

[HeDa]

There are both women and men deacons in the Lutheran church as far as I know. Most have some kind of degree of social work, nursing or teaching before they start the final part of deacon training. From what I have seen there are a lot more women deacons than men and it is a separate education and calling. A priest would be ordained as a priest and not as a deacon and then priest. (Compared to Catholic priest who are first ordained as deacons and then after about a year ordained as a priest. The priesthood is three folded deacon, priest and bishop.)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There’s a distinction between Protestant “deaconesses” who are lay women involved with caring for sick and elderly people and doing other social service work, and ordained female deacons as found in the Anglican church and some other Protestant churches. The number of “deaconesses” who provided the health care and social services have declined because now we have trained nurses, social workers etc for that. Their name lives on via the “Deaconess Hospital” brand in many parts of the US.

Deaconess - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I got a chuckle from reading on some United Church of Christmas site that the deaconess movement for health care/ social work got started after an Evangelical minister found one of her parishioners, who was sick, was being tended by a Roman Catholic nun because there wasn’t anybody else to do it. Apparently the idea of a Catholic nun helping was so horrifying that the Protestants sprang immediately into action and formed a group to take care of their own.

 

[dochawk]

The wikipedia pieces is wrong about “women deacons in the early church.” Deaconesses are and were not female deacons, although they share similar shrive roles.

Deaconesses exist to this day in some EC and EO churches.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I would recommend that if you have a good source about women deacons in the early church, you try to correct the Wiki piece then.
Religion articles on Wikipedia, other than the ones about Jewish topics which always start huge debates, disputes, moderator actions etc. , can usually benefit from some intelligent help.

 

[poche]

Could it have been seen as theologically unconvincing because they were seen as sociological?

 

[PickyPicky]

Could it have been seen as theologically unconvincing because they were seen as sociological?

Could have been. But it wasn’t.

Cardinal Willebrands:

I have given considerable thought to the theological arguments for the ordination of women which you report.