Men Only: Do we need a theology that explains the importance of women in the Church?

[VeritasLuxMea]

To best understand it, look at what the Church teaches about the nature of the human person. We are a union of body and soul ( Corpra et Amina Unis). The body and soul are not parts of us, but rather we are the union where the two meet.

Now look at the generation of the human person. The feminine is clearly the source of the bodily aspect of the human person. It would not be exclusionary to state that men cannot give birth. Men simply cannot, due to the nature of ‘male’ participate with God in the generation of the human body.

But there is also spiritual birth to consider. That is the second, and equal, aspect of our humanity. And it is to the male that God gives the primary role of spiritual birth, the ‘nursing’ of the soul via the Eucharist, the rebirth of the soul in the forgiveness of sin.

Thus it is no more exclusionary for the man to have the greater and more obvious role in this aspect of humanity than for the woman to have the greater, and more obvious role in the material aspect.

In fact, it would be a REQUIREMENT for equality that Holy Orders be reserved to men, as otherwise, there would be no equally defined role for men as there is for women in the generation of what God values most, a saint.

And thus to bring about a new saint, it requires the cooperation of both male and female, each bringing about their own gifts in cooperation with God. Each serving in their appointed roles addressing those aspects of the human person to which their natures are conformed.

You make a very interesting case, re: the production of Saints. However, I’ve discovered my primary area of confusion here. We seem to be talking about the roles of men and women in two different spheres: the Church and the home, or the domestic Church. Let’s break it down like this:

In the domestic Church:

-Men: the head, the protector
-Women: the heart, the nurturer

In the Church:

-Men: the head, the protector (the ordained)
-Women: ???

I seem to be missing that one part to complete the equation.

 

[Brendan]

. We seem to be talking about the roles of men and women in two different spheres: the Church and the home, or the domestic Church. Let’s break it down like this:

In the domestic Church:

-Men: the head, the protector
-Women: the heart, the nurturer

In the Church:

-Men: the head, the protector (the ordained)
-Women: ???

I seem to be missing that one part to complete the equation.

If we are talking about roles then, perhaps it might be best to seek role models, as Scripture is replete with Archtypes.

As Christ is the High Priest, and thus the ‘role mode;’ for the clergy, what of Mary as role model for the role of woman.

If you want to understand the role of women in the sphere of the Church, what role do you feel Mary plays? Where does she factor in to the life of the Church?

 

[NovusAugustus]

I am of two minds about this. On the one hand, there is certainly a lot of confusion among the laity and the Anti-Catholic media about this–see the frequent, baseless proclamations of, “women and men are equal,” for examples. So, yes, the Church certainly needs to make its teaching available in a very clear and concise manner.

My fear, however, is that by even attempting this, the Church will become a target for some kind of huge feminist rally movement, with shirtless, “natural” women running around outside St. Peter’s declaring that it is a woman’s right to become a priestess and so forth, and, almost by default, the media all around the world will begin lambasting the “exclusionary Patriarchal Church.”

Basically, I think the Church already has a theology of the role and nature of women, so why bother with a recompilation of the old stuff if it means a media nightmare? The thing about progressives is that they will never be satisfied–a new discussion on an old issue is only a good discussion if it has their desired outcomes: priestess ordinations, abortion and birth control pills for all, and no-fault divorces.

P.S. Why is the explanation of Jesus choosing a male-only apostleship inadequate? Some in this thread and the female-only thread have simply rejected this as a valid argument, but it seems clear to me that Jesus–who showed unusual compassion, interest, respect, and love towards women in the Gospels compared to people in other cultures–Jesus, God in our midst, full of Divine wisdom, would have chosen women as apostles if he wanted to. To those responding that he was merely conforming to social norms, I highly doubt that–Jesus had no problem smashing other social norms into bits. And he certainly had a few choices, judging by the frequent mention of the various Mary’s and the women who went to the tomb. But in the end, he did not choose any, and none were included in the great commission. If you accept the Church’s theology of Apostolic Succession, why do you expect that Apostle’s or the modern successors of the Apostles to ignore the example of Christ?

 

[NovusAugustus]

You make a very interesting case, re: the production of Saints. However, I’ve discovered my primary area of confusion here. We seem to be talking about the roles of men and women in two different spheres: the Church and the home, or the domestic Church. Let’s break it down like this:

In the domestic Church:

-Men: the head, the protector
-Women: the heart, the nurturer

In the Church:

-Men: the head, the protector (the ordained)
-Women: ???

I seem to be missing that one part to complete the equation.

Maybe the answer is once again “the heart, the nurturer”? I think you are underestimating the importance of motherhood. No priest or bishop would be where he is without a mother behind him, just as Christ needed Mary (adopted/fostered/orphan priests excepted, of course). Why isn’t that sufficient?

 

[R_C]

In the Church:

-Men: the head, the protector (the ordained)
-Women: ???

I seem to be missing that one part to complete the equation.

Women: the spouse, the comforter, the consoler, the sweet mother, the kind sister, the obedient daughter, modest, striving to be hidden in Christ - in imitation of the greatest of all women, Our Lady!

Perhaps you are forgetting that we have many women who have consecrated their life to serving the Church either in religious life, or in a third order, or as a lay faithful in generous single life - or even many wives and mothers who volunteer their time to help as needed.

And we do have several women who have become Doctors of the Church: the strong s. Caterina of Siena, the little flower s. Therese of Lisieux, the mystic s. Teresa of Avila, and the visionary s. Hildegard of Binge.

And to whom were given the revelations of the Sacred Heart and of Divine Mercy?

And to whom did Our Lady appear most often to grant special graces - such as the Miraculous Medal or the superabundance of gifts of Lourdes?

And who is especially called to console Christ and to offers sacrifice and penance for the sanctification of the clergy, the conversion of sinners, and the good of souls?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)


http://www.sistersofcarmel.com/pics/carmelite-nuns-chanting-salve-regina.jpg

http://www.passionistnuns.org/blog/wp-content/themes/fallseason/images/NunCrucifixblog.jpg
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[R_C]

Also, while it is certain that Christ wills to call men to share in the apostolic succession and be able to act in persona Christi Capitis, that is clearly not all! We have many other kinds of vocations within the Church, from different ways of religious life to third orders to lay apostolates, without forgetting the men who serve in generous single life and the husbands who also volunteer their time - some of them called to take a step further and become deacons.

 

[R_C]

P.S. Why is the explanation of Jesus choosing a male-only apostleship inadequate? Some in this thread and the female-only thread have simply rejected this as a valid argument, but it seems clear to me that Jesus–who showed unusual compassion, interest, respect, and love towards women in the Gospels compared to people in other cultures–Jesus, God in our midst, full of Divine wisdom, would have chosen women as apostles if he wanted to.

Take the argument one step further: why did God the Son incarnate as a man? Why not God the Daughter? People don’t seem to realize that God does all things well, and to insist in protesting the male-only priesthood they are in fact risking to blaspheme the Son who did not diminish the dignity of women by incarnating as a man.