Pope discusses women in the church, divorce, his own spirituality

[bellasbane]

I guess that makes those of us women who experience psychological and spiritual fulfillment through Catholic spirituality, “undeveloped” and “superficial.”

I don’t know why you feel the need to go there.

Wasn’t it Paul who said, “As unto little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat” – 1 Corinthians 3:1-2.

For some people, milk is good enough. That is all they need. There is nothing wrong with that. In some ways, I envy people who are satisfied with milk.

I have related my whole life to strong women in both secular and religious realms, so I don’t have any anachronistic stereotypes I’m relying on, either. The Church’s theology already supports such role models. I suppose if there is a concern about “no separate theology of/for women,” then there should be a comparable concern about “no separate theology of/for men,” because in fact there is not a separate “theology” of or for men, in Catholic theology.

Yes, there are loads of great women in the Bible and among the saints, Mary Theotokos being primary among them, and as Pope Francis said, “greater than the apostles”. Nobody is suggesting this is not the case. But like I said before, there has been no systematic attempt to examine the lives of all these women and see how they fit into God’s plan for salvation. This is what a deep theology of women would do.

Right now, saints like Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Ávila and Hildegard of Bingen are regarded as an anomalies among women. The only reason why this should be so is that the implicit standard they are being compared against cannot accommodate women like them. This is a problem. There should be a theology that explains why such women fit perfectly into the Divine Order. Right now, such a theology does not exist.

It was Pope Francis who said, “we don’t have a deep theology of women in the Church” and then he repeated it - so it wasn’t just some off-the-cuff remark. Yet, your comments suggest that you disagree with him. Is that correct?

I happen to agree with him. At this point in our history, the Church needs every worker it can get and cannot afford to waste the gifts given to any person by the Holy Spirit - regardless of whether that person is male or female. I’ve spoken to many people in my parish and at conferences and there seems to be a general sense that the status quo with respect to women in the Church is insufficient. Clearly, this is something our Church leaders are keenly aware of as well - even if your average person sitting in the pews doesn’t get it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t know why you feel the need to go there.

Because you did. I’m lifting your words.

It was Pope Francis who said, “we don’t have a deep theology of women in the Church” and then he repeated it - so it wasn’t just some off-the-cuff remark. Yet, your comments suggest that you disagree with him. Is that correct?

I know what he said. He’s correct that, on its face, the Catholic Church does not have a specific theology of/for women, apart from men. I said that at least twice now, previously. No feminist theology, per se. *** Also no masculine theology, per se***. If the Pope believes that he needs to, or the CDF needs to, create a specific theology for females, that is his prerogative as Pope. (Naturally!)

What I’m saying is, that many of us intuit that deep theology from the already voluminous sources for spirituality and theology which have been accessible to both females and males, equally, for 2,000 years. For that matter (and I mean no disrespect) lots of post-V2 babies were awed when JP2 created Theology of the Body. I was not, only because it is actually not “new” theology at all. All of TOTB derives from preexisting Catholic theology.

If you’re saying (I think your post implies) that some Catholic women would benefit from a specialized, explicit theology “just for them,” (with the derivations laid out explicitly), I don’t see any harm in it, as long as what doesn’t happen – as too often does happen, especially recently, including on active CAF threads – laypeople thoroughly misinterpret the implications of such a “new” theology, as granting anything different from the long-standing full spiritual equality with men which the Church has proclaimed for an awfully long time now. I trust the Pope. I do not necessarily trust every less-well-versed lay person not to exploit any new body of work as a excuse for an inappropriate “battle of the sexes,” especially within the Church.

I’ve spoken to many people in my parish and at conferences and there seems to be a general sense that the status quo with respect to women in the Church is insufficient.

What does the blue phrase mean? Are you assuming that Pope Francis also agrees with these anonymous “many people” in your parish that there’s something unacceptable about the “status” of women in the Church? And if so, why do you assume that? Is it based on his comment about “a theology?”

Clearly, this is something our Church leaders are keenly aware of as well - even if your average person sitting in the pews doesn’t get it.

No, it’s not “clear” at all – that any “Church leaders” agree that there’s something unacceptable about women’s status in the Church. Second, those who don’t agree with you, or don’t feel some kind of call to unspecified activism are not people who “don’t get it,” as if you have access to some private knowledge which you share exclusively with “our Church leaders.”

 

[bellasbane]

Because you did. I’m lifting your words.

Really? They why didn’t you just quote me? Oh, because I said no such thing.

I know what he said. He’s correct that, on its face, the Catholic Church does not have a specific theology of/for women, apart from men. I said that at least twice now, previously. No feminist theology, per se. *** Also no masculine theology, per se***. If the Pope believes that he needs to, or the CDF needs to, create a specific theology for females, that is his prerogative as Pope. (Naturally!)

But you disagree with him.

What I’m saying is, that many of us intuit that deep theology from the already voluminous sources for spirituality and theology which have been accessible to both females and males, equally, for 2,000 years. For that matter (and I mean no disrespect) lots of post-V2 babies were awed when JP2 created Theology of the Body. I was not, only because it is actually not “new” theology at all. All of TOTB derives from preexisting Catholic theology.

If you’re saying (I think your post implies) that some Catholic women would benefit from a specialized, explicit theology “just for them,” (with the derivations laid out explicitly), I don’t see any harm in it, as long as what doesn’t happen – as too often does happen, especially recently, including on active CAF threads – laypeople thoroughly misinterpret the implications of such a “new” theology, as granting anything different from the long-standing full spiritual equality with men which the Church has proclaimed for an awfully long time now. I trust the Pope. I do not necessarily trust every less-well-versed lay person not to exploit any new body of work as a excuse for an inappropriate “battle of the sexes,” especially within the Church.

Had you read through all of my posts, you would have seen that everything I wrote was well within the context of the foundational framework laid out by JPII. Why don’t we stick to that and refrain from injecting anything extra into the discussion.

Yes, some people will misinterpret what the Church says - it happens ALL the time. That is no reason to stop moving forward. If you think we have no need to reach for a deeper or fuller understanding of the Divine Order then you are basically telling the Holy Spirit to get lost - your job in this world is done.

I don’t think that is really what you intend to say at all.

What does the blue phrase mean? Are you assuming that Pope Francis also agrees with these anonymous “many people” in your parish that there’s something unacceptable about the “status” of women in the Church? And if so, why do you assume that? Is it based on his comment about “a theology?”

I did not say “status”. I said “status quo”. Please read more carefully.

It is based on this comment: “We talk about whether they can do this or that, can they be altar boys, can they be lectors, about a woman as president of Caritas, but we don’t have a deep theology of women in the Church.”

These are exactly the sort of discussions I’ve had with many people. Clearly, Pope Francis is aware of what is going on and made a conscious choice to talk about it when asked about the ordination of women as priests. He brought it up. He could have just cited JPII as the arbiter of the ordination issue and left it at that - but he didn’t.

Instead, he spoke of what he is facing as Pope. The debates and discussions that will fall to him and to his succors to arbitrate - and he finds a problem. Because the Church does not have a deep theology of women, he has no foundation upon which to decide one way or another. Popes don’t just make declarations on a whim. They need something to work with and Pope Francis is saying he doesn’t have much to go on.

No, it’s not “clear” at all – that any “Church leaders” agree that there’s something unacceptable about women’s status in the Church. Second, those who don’t agree with you, or don’t feel some kind of call to unspecified activism are not people who “don’t get it,” as if you have access to some private knowledge which you share exclusively with “our Church leaders.”

Most of the folks who sit in the pews don’t get what all the debates in the Church are about. How many can name the great heresies or any Church council apart from VII and Nicaea. I’d wager not many.

But they have faith in Christ and that’s good enough. No amount of learning trumps that.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with me, you should at least make the attempt to understand what Pope Francis was getting at. He is after all “the leader” among the leaders of the Church. Unfortunately, instead of striving for understanding, you seem intent on dismissing his words.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If you’re saying (I think your post implies) that some Catholic women would benefit from a specialized, explicit theology “just for them,” (with the derivations laid out explicitly), I don’t see any harm in it, as long as what doesn’t happen – as too often does happen, especially recently, including on active CAF threads – laypeople thoroughly misinterpret the implications of such a “new” theology, as granting anything different from the long-standing full spiritual equality with men which the Church has proclaimed for an awfully long time now. I trust the Pope. I do not necessarily trust every less-well-versed lay person not to exploit any new body of work as a excuse for an inappropriate “battle of the sexes,” especially within the Church.

What does the blue phrase mean? Are you assuming that Pope Francis also agrees with these anonymous “many people” in your parish that there’s something unacceptable about the “status” of women in the Church? And if so, why do you assume that? Is it based on his comment about “a theology?”

No, it’s not “clear” at all – that any “Church leaders” agree that there’s something unacceptable about women’s status in the Church. Second, those who don’t agree with you, or don’t feel some kind of call to unspecified activism are not people who “don’t get it,” as if you have access to some private knowledge which you share exclusively with “our Church leaders.”

I think we’re going to have to wait and see what the Pope actually meant. I sincerely doubt that he thinks there is some kind of separationist theology (Church??) for women apart from that of men. That, it seems to me, smacks of the secular feminist movement which encourages resentment, introversion, hatred and, ultimately, dissatisfaction.

But are there, perhaps, aspects of the fact of being female that have a spiritual richness to them that has not been entirely plumbed or perhaps compiled? Not being a woman, I have difficulty thinking that through, but it would not be surprising to me if it wasn’t so. While I don’t think the Church has ignored the spiritual gifts of women or failed to extol them, perhaps the very fact that one is obliged to tease that information out in a scholarly way is a difficulty. Perhaps the “big encyclical” pulling it all together and perhaps enhancing it, has yet to be written.

Regardless, I suspect those who are into secular feminism will be rather disappointed in the development of Pope Francis’ thoughts.

But for sure, one has to recognize that the secular materialist mores of today have utterly and grotesquely failed women. The last several decades of their reign have done nothing but contribute to the degradation of all that is female. If the Pope intends to right the ship, a better time to do it could hardly be imagined. To me, at least, it seems rather late in the day in a world in which true femininity is so little regarded that any man can falsely claim to be a woman and expect to see the falsehood accepted “officially”.

And in the Church itself after the religious organizations of women melted down into individualistic near-irrelevancy, what has been done to reverse the orders’ having essentially retired from the fields of charity and spiritual enrichment of others? Well, here and there one sees a bishop help some new order get established and on its way. But there isn’t any major movement to resurrect the “female arm of the Church” from the ashes of its self-ruin.

 

[kag1982]

I don’t know anyone who has forgotten…that women are capable of THE greatest vocation of all!!
Who’s forgotten this?? No one I know, for sure.

.

And men are for called to the greatest vocation of all… Fatherhood. There are two parents in a household and both should play an active role in raising children and running a household. This isn’t just a female activity. Moreover, both adult men and women should be given an active role in participating in Church life and civic activity. Women shouldn’t be restricted to a certain “domestic sphere” ala the Duggar women where there only worth is cleaning, cooking, and having a gazillion kids.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Regardless of whether or not you agree with me, you should at least make the attempt to understand what Pope Francis was getting at. He is after all “the leader” among the leaders of the Church. Unfortunately, instead of striving for understanding, you seem intent on dismissing his words.

Actually, it appears that in terms of what he has said so far, I understand his meaning far more than you do, and that you understand both him and me, less.

In any case, lots of irrelevancies in your post and off-topic rants. Finally, how would you know what the people in the pews do and do not know or understand? It smacks of elitism, or again, private knowledge, with you and some self-chosen “others” as being insiders in the Church and the rest of the strangers in the pews having insufficient knowledge to understand the Pope. (In any case, I do not believe I misunderstand him whatsoever.)

Have a nice day.

 

[CarolNoel]

Then she gives her life totally to God, prays, and uses her God-given talents to spread the Gospel. She always follows Christ’s teaching, through his Church. There is a very wide latitude for how this plays out in the life of any person, whether woman or man.

Yes!

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think the real crisis we face today is with men…men are lost souls, both from a spiritual and a worldly pov. They do not know what they are supposed to do, how to act, how to be good husbands…or even just how to be good men.

I agree, and perhaps the Pope will address this.

I have long thought that the most influential man (in the west) in the 20th Century was Hugh Hefner. Before you laugh out loud, let me explain. Hefner ran his “Playboy Philosophy” for years and years and years in his magazine and, indeed, everything about the magazine proclaimed the philosophy. And he proclaimed it “good”, “enlightened”.

Basically, it was a secular materialist libertarianism so libertarian as to be libertine. Women, as depicted, were “playmates”; creatures whose sexuality, whose very female nature was a “plaything”. And men bought it wholesale because it introduced half the population as a “consumer good” just like the expensive cars, liquors, etc, that he advertised in the magazine. A whole new consumption item! Women. They were not “wives”, not “partners”, not “holy persons”, not “children of God”, but “playmates” (and we know what the “play” was, and we know how degrading engaging in it as “play” truly is)

I attribute the radical feminist movement not to its supposed female apostles, but to Hefner. Radical secular feminism was a reaction to the dehumanizing of women by men. “Do without men” its champions shouted. “Men are trouble. Men are bad” “Do your own thing, sexually and otherwise” “Men are consumer goods too” “marriage is domination. The Church is patriarchy”, “play the game men are playing and beat them at it”.

Someday, I believe, anthropologists will look back and recognize all of that. Some will see how evil it and its byproducts were. They will trace all the lines running out from it, and they will put “credit” where it’s due.

 

[Elizabeth502]

But are there, perhaps, aspects of the fact of being female that have a spiritual richness to them that has not been entirely plumbed or perhaps compiled? … While I don’t think the Church has ignored the spiritual gifts of women or failed to extol them, perhaps the very fact that one is obliged to tease that information out in a scholarly way is a difficulty. Perhaps the “big encyclical” pulling it all together and perhaps enhancing it, has yet to be written.

Sure, for those who seem to need things “spelled out” for them, as I said earlier, I see no harm. Regardless, some of us don’t need things spelled out, and that fact does not mean that we have no theological reference points for womanhood, and an already developed theological sense of womanhood in a spiritual context. Nor does it mean “we don’t get it.” As you said, Ridge, we don’t know exactly what the Pope means, so for anyone on this thread to presuppose that he or she does know, has “inside” secret knowledge on the same plane as “Church leaders,” and that those of us who see no urgency in a “developed female theology” are somehow clueless, uninformed, or ignorant – is laughable.

Regardless, I suspect those who are into secular feminism will be rather disappointed in the development of Pope Francis’ thoughts.

Nevertheless, Ridge, the attempts to create an equation will be drawn. Bank on it. Every time this Pope has casually remarked on anything, and every time he’s delivered a short homily in which he drops some reference to something but doesn’t expand on it, the Left take his remarks utterly out of context and do violence to the realm of numbers by asserting that 2+1 = 2100.

 

[Catya]

I agree, and perhaps the Pope will address this.

I have long thought that the most influential man (in the west) in the 20th Century was Hugh Hefner. Before you laugh out loud, let me explain. Hefner ran his “Playboy Philosophy” for years and years and years in his magazine and, indeed, everything about the magazine proclaimed the philosophy. And he proclaimed it “good”, “enlightened”.

Basically, it was a secular materialist libertarianism so libertarian as to be libertine. Women, as depicted, were “playmates”; creatures whose sexuality, whose very female nature was a “plaything”. And men bought it wholesale because it introduced half the population as a “consumer good” just like the expensive cars, liquors, etc, that he advertised in the magazine. A whole new consumption item! Women. They were not “wives”, not “partners”, not “holy persons”, not “children of God”, but “playmates” (and we know what the “play” was, and we know how degrading engaging in it as “play” truly is)

I attribute the radical feminist movement not to its supposed female apostles, but to Hefner. Radical secular feminism was a reaction to the dehumanizing of women by men. “Do without men” its champions shouted. “Men are trouble. Men are bad” “Do your own thing, sexually and otherwise” “Men are consumer goods too” “marriage is domination. The Church is patriarchy”, “play the game men are playing and beat them at it”.

Someday, I believe, anthropologists will look back and recognize all of that. Some will see how evil it and its byproducts were. They will trace all the lines running out from it, and they will put “credit” where it’s due.

BRILLIANT!

 

[bellasbane]

Actually, it appears that in terms of what he has said so far, I understand his meaning far more than you do, and that you understand both him and me, less.

In any case, lots of irrelevancies in your post and off-topic rants. Finally, how would you know what the people in the pews do and do not know or understand? It smacks of elitism, or again, private knowledge, with you and some self-chosen “others” as being insiders in the Church and the rest of the strangers in the pews having insufficient knowledge to understand the Pope. (In any case, I do not believe I misunderstand him whatsoever.)

Have a nice day.

Dear Elizabeth,

Do you often tell people to “Have a nice day” after accusing them of making “off-topic rants”? Don’t you think its kind of like punching a person in the face and then saying, “Enjoy your trip to the hospital!”.

If you truly want a person to “Have a nice day” I recommend that you leave off using inflammatory language like “off-topic rants” and “smacks of elitism”. Such phrases are best left to the trolls and shock-jocks who just like to pick fights.

Fortunately for you, I did have a nice day!

We had a whole slew of new registrations for religious education at our parish. Our program administrator (who has the unenviable job of entering all the information into our database and doing fun stuff like tracking down baptismal certificates) at one point declared, “I can’t believe it! They are coming out of the woodwork!” We had folks show up that we haven’t seen in years. It was a wonderful day!

Back to the topic - you claim to understand better than I do what Pope Francis meant when he said “we don’t yet have a truly deep theology of women in the church”.

I would be delighted to hear what you believe he meant. So far, all you’ve done is to argue that things are just fine the way they are - thank you very much. If nothing is lacking, then what did Pope Francis mean by “we don’t yet have…”.

 

[bellasbane]

I agree, and perhaps the Pope will address this.

I attribute the radical feminist movement not to its supposed female apostles, but to Hefner. Radical secular feminism was a reaction to the dehumanizing of women by men. “Do without men” its champions shouted. “Men are trouble. Men are bad” “Do your own thing, sexually and otherwise” “Men are consumer goods too” “marriage is domination. The Church is patriarchy”, “play the game men are playing and beat them at it”.

You make a good point. The natural human response to extremism in one direction is to go all extreme in the other. Tying this to the Gospel - it is one of the hardest aspects of human nature to overcome, but overcoming it is exactly what Jesus shows us to do. When we talk about Original Sin as a way of understanding our flawed human nature, this is certainly a part of it.

While it is important to understand the dynamics involved in the radical feminist movement, I had hoped this thread would focus more on the New Feminism that JPII set the foundation for in the Church in Mulieris Dignitatem.

My take on what Pope Francis said was that despite having a Wikipedia entry, the Church is still working on it. Which is good, because it really isn’t very well developed yet and needs much more in the way of discussion and debate. As a liberal-minded person, I welcome such discussions, but I think this may seem threatening to those who are more conservative-minded.

What do you think?

 

[irishpatrick]

I agree, and perhaps the Pope will address this.

I have long thought that the most influential man (in the west) in the 20th Century was Hugh Hefner. Before you laugh out loud, let me explain. Hefner ran his “Playboy Philosophy” for years and years and years in his magazine and, indeed, everything about the magazine proclaimed the philosophy. And he proclaimed it “good”, “enlightened”.

Basically, it was a secular materialist libertarianism so libertarian as to be libertine. Women, as depicted, were “playmates”; creatures whose sexuality, whose very female nature was a “plaything”. And men bought it wholesale because it introduced half the population as a “consumer good” just like the expensive cars, liquors, etc, that he advertised in the magazine. A whole new consumption item! Women. They were not “wives”, not “partners”, not “holy persons”, not “children of God”, but “playmates” (and we know what the “play” was, and we know how degrading engaging in it as “play” truly is)

I attribute the radical feminist movement not to its supposed female apostles, but to Hefner. Radical secular feminism was a reaction to the dehumanizing of women by men. “Do without men” its champions shouted. “Men are trouble. Men are bad” “Do your own thing, sexually and otherwise” “Men are consumer goods too” “marriage is domination. The Church is patriarchy”, “play the game men are playing and beat them at it”.

Someday, I believe, anthropologists will look back and recognize all of that. Some will see how evil it and its byproducts were. They will trace all the lines running out from it, and they will put “credit” where it’s due.

100% agree, well said.

What makes me sad is how so many women, who think they are living in an age of women, cannot see that they are objectified and lowered to being mere commodities by this culture. They cannot see the amazing beauty and gifts God has bestowed on them, which are uniquely female and no male can ever take on those traits. So sad. Abortion and contraception are often seen as the tools that helped to liberate women, yet that is wrong too–abortion and contraception are actually tools brought by men in order liberate men of any real world consequence for their sexual exploits and desires. Women used to be the gate keepers…now there are no gatekeepers and the culture is far worse off for having lost the gatekeepers.

Men from say the 1800s would be astonished with the easy and free way men can go from woman to woman without ever suffering a worldly consequence in today’s culture, and how willing women are to let men jump from woman to woman. IMO, women cannot see these realities–they think it is all for them, when has all been a shell game with men being the real people benefitting (so to speak).

Because of all of this, men are no longer held to a higher standard, they are not held to be actual men who have some control and maturity over their own drives and desires…it is no wonder that men do not reach maturity until 26-27 years-old (a level of maturity reached by men 19 years old just 30-40 years ago). Oh, how far we have fallen away from common sense, and from the path God would have us take.

As for the Pope, I believe we have seen him stress the Lord’s Mercy–he is not trying to change Church teachings, he is trying to get people to access the Lord’s Mercy–and that should give everyone pause.

 

[Brendan]

I
Right now, saints like Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Ávila and Hildegard of Bingen are regarded as an anomalies among women. The only reason why this should be so is that the implicit standard they are being compared against cannot accommodate women like them. This is a problem. There should be a theology that explains why such women fit perfectly into the Divine Order. Right now, such a theology does not exist.

Huh? I thought the Baltimore Catechism covered that when it discussed why God created us

God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next

.

How does that not show how those women (or any Saint) fits into the Divine Order?

What ‘implicit standard’ does describes them as anomalies among women, or at least in a way that does not also show Francis of Assisi and Martin DePorres to be equally anomalous among males?

 

[bellasbane]

Huh? I thought the Baltimore Catechism covered that when it discussed why God created us.

God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next

I am sure Pope Francis is aware of that line from the Baltimore Catechism - or something like it written in Spanish or Italian. Nevertheless, it was he who said, “we don’t yet have a truly deep theology of women in the church.” - so that’s a given.

I really don’t know why people keep trying to argue me out of agreeing with him.

St. Francis and St. Martin could be regarded as anomalous, but not in a masculine sense. Both reflect the masculinity of their day which afforded St. Francis the liberty of being a bit of a vagabond (St. Claire had no such option) and St. Martin the role of a serving boy. Both “vagabond” and “serving boy” are legitimate masculine categories - even if they are low status ones that I sure very few men are willing to embrace.

The only reason why anyone listened to St. Catherine, St. Teresa or St. Hildegard during their day was because they were all “mystics”. All three were literally hit with a bolt of lighting from heaven and were understood to have a direct channel to God. Otherwise, as women, they would have been required to be subservient and above all required to “remain silent” (see 1 Corinthians 14: 33-35; Titus 2:5; 1 Timothy 1:1; and especially 1 Timothy 2: 9-15).

This admonishment remains in effect today. At present, Holy Orders is required for a person to preach the Homily at mass, which means that women are categorically banned from doing so.** I see no justification for this.** Women were the first witnesses to the Resurrection. Mary Magdalene was the first person to preach the Gospel - sent directly by the Lord to the rest of the Apostles. When Jesus revealed himself as the Messiah to the Samaritan woman, she promptly spread the news to others. If that wasn’t his intention, then at the very least, Jesus didn’t seem to mind.

All this doesn’t even touch Mary Theotokes, born already redeemed, assumed bodily into heaven. What does that mean!! The only way I can understand it is to think “temporal paradox” - because to me that is what Mary’s very existence represents.

 

[livingwordunity]

There are certainly threads within scripture & tradition and the history of the Church that can be drawn together to form a comprehensive theology of women - but this has not happened yet. The default we currently live under is a theology of men.

Apparently, you have never read Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Church’s theology of the sexes always talks about the importance of each and how each is in relation to the other. Men and women were created by God to be complementary to each other. We each have different roles. Women are given the ability to bear and nurture new life in their womb and be mothers, and men are given the responsibility of fatherhood either with a family of their own or through the spiritual fatherhood of being a priest. Without the woman giving birth there would be no priest. And actually there would have been no Incarnation of Christ. And without the priest consecrating the Eucharist we would have no communion. The roles between the two sexes are different, but these different roles are important and interdependent.

 

[bellasbane]

Apparently, you have never read Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Church’s theology of the sexes always talks about the importance of each and how each is in relation to the other. Men and women were created by God to be complementary to each other. We each have different roles. Women are given the ability to bear and nurture new life in their womb and be mothers, and men are given the responsibility of fatherhood either with a family of their own or through the spiritual fatherhood of being a priest. Without the woman giving birth there would be no priest. And actually there would have been no Incarnation of Christ. And without the priest consecrating the Eucharist we would have no communion. The roles between the two sexes are different, but these different roles are important and interdependent.

Again, I am pretty sure Pope Francis has read Theology of the Body and I am certain he knows the Catechism of the Catholic Church inside and out. Nevertheless, it was he who said, “we don’t yet have a truly deep theology of women in the church.”.

I really don’t know why people keep trying to argue me out of agreeing with him. If the answer were as obvious as you suggest, then how do you explain his words?

Would you say, “Excuse me, Your Holiness, but if you had only read your Catechism you would know that the Church already has a deep theology of women.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

Do you often tell people to “Have a nice day” after accusing them of making “off-topic rants”? Don’t you think its kind of like punching a person in the face and then saying, “Enjoy your trip to the hospital!”.

Most of your comments I’m not going to respond to, because they come across as merely baiting or aching for a fight, including the comments above.

What it really sounds like, particularly in view of the rest of your post, and your earlier posts, is that you are really angry that I do not have feel the same urgency on this topic that you claim to have. I’m sorry that that upsets you, but your previous posts did read like rants to me, and that’s why I called them off-topic. That’s a perfectly suitable response to someone who takes a quote from a Pope completely out of context and generalizes it, without substance, to a situation in her parish, which similarly she has generalized about, without the full knowledge of what level of intelligence and curiosity those people have…Relative to Francis’ remarks, they are off-topic, and they assume a huge amount – about others, and about what he meant.

As for inflammatory remarks, your remarks about the supposed level of understanding in your parish, and your accompanying comment about how I supposedly just don’t get it, are quite offensive. Add to the offensive notion that you have some inside understanding “along with Church leaders” which the rest of us are simply beneath. He made a comment about something that “we don’t yet have.” (with the implication that this is a good time for that). Three times now I have affirmed that fact, and three times you instead want to argue with me that maybe I don’t understand that and you do. So I’m not sure what it will take to make it very clear that I am under no deficiency with regard to the Church’s understanding of women, and also that I am neutral on Francis’ desire to write something more specific about that. That’s his prerogative, which I affirmed several times as his prerogative.

It is your privilege to be as excited as you want to be about some unspecified possible document in the future about the theology of women. It is misleading, though, to suggest that those who are not as excited as you are are clueless, or behind the times, or don’t read the news, or don’t “get it.” That’s to reveal the history here. I am noting that some other posters do not share your passion about this, and are confused about why you want to argue about something that hasn’t even happened yet. I was going to mention JP2’s writings, but thankfully LWU beat me to it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Now, as to the possibility of a future document, I’ll share what I think the value could be of that: Perhaps some modern women would benefit from a re-articulation of what spiritual equality means vs. what political equality means. ***But that’s because they never had proper catechesis to begin with. *** If they had, they would not be confused about that; they would not borrow secular paradigms and insert them artificially into the life of the Church, such as governance. They would understand that a function in the Church has nothing to do with (a) personal holiness (b) equality before God, (c) spiritual worth (d) personal worth. (Well, I’m not convinced all of them would “understand” it, but they would have a modern reference for that.)

They would also have a current document correcting the concept of “power.” I’m actually not going to repeat all my thoughts on this, because I do find it lazy of posters, particularly when they have been on similar threads with me on similar topics, to revert to asking me the same questions again. A quick search with my name in it would reveal those thoughts of mine. IOW, far be it from me to “advise” the Pope! I’m speaking, rather, of what I see, as a woman, are the deficits in many lay women as to what they understand about men, women, and the (many) roles of both within the Church, as well as the dignity and value of both. However, that not only speaks to poor catechesis, it speaks i.m.o., to a very poor foundation in spirituality. All anyone needs to do is to become well-acquainted with Church history, deep scripture, and the lives of the Saints to know both intuitively and intellectually what could be called a theology of women.

The even more critical aspect of the spirituality that is missing is the refusal to obey the Magisterium (“because they’re men”), or to consider magisterial teachings as definitive or even guiding. The attitude of dismissiveness is a transparent mark of a lack of developed Catholic spirituality. IOW, perhaps I am less hopeful than you (more skeptical), that the women who supposedly need to hear/read such a new document will actually be changed by it.

Just as real men are tender, real, modern, active, professional, 21-st century committed Catholic women, living their faith, pray. And if they have no use for such a “passive activity” as prayer, they cannot call themselves committed Catholic women, i.m.o. That would make them (like it makes similar men) lukewarm Catholics… Rather, committed women, as part of that identity, have a developed, adult spirituality that conforms to the Church instead of opposing the Church. The constant agitating-for-something-more is a sign that a woman has not begun to understand, let alone respect, the leaders of the Church as apostolic successors of Christ Himself. By itself, I do not see a document (encyclical, apostolic letter, whatever) as changing the hearts of women who are determined to view the Church with secular eyes.

Since V2, catechesis has declined to a pitiful state, and the recognition of a need for personal spirituality has suffered even more. More than ever, the laity perceives Catholicism to be a Sunday-only reality, and “will only go” if it’s modern, fun, all-English, social, makes them “feel important and special,” they can spend as little effort as is legal to dress for it, and makes no demands on them. They also mistakenly perceive Catholicism to be irrelevant to the civic square, which is of course the opposite of Church teaching, and is borne from the heresy of Americanism. I do not see a papal document as changing any of that.

The way to become an empowered Catholic woman is (a) to become informed of the Church’s already rich understanding of women (its theology and its spirituality), and (b) to spend time on ones knees.

N.B.: Also true for men.

 

[FrStevenJones]

Now, as to the possibility of a future document, I’ll share what I think the value could be of that: Perhaps some modern women would benefit from a re-articulation of what spiritual equality means vs. what political equality means. ***But that’s because they never had proper catechesis to begin with. *** If they had, they would not be confused about that; they would not borrow secular paradigms and insert them artificially into the life of the Church, such as governance. They would understand that a function in the Church has nothing to do with (a) personal holiness (b) equality before God, (c) spiritual worth (d) personal worth. (Well, I’m not convinced all of them would “understand” it, but they would have a modern reference for that.)

They would also have a current document correcting the concept of “power.” I’m actually not going to repeat all my thoughts on this, because I do find it lazy of posters, particularly when they have been on similar threads with me on similar topics, to revert to asking me the same questions again. A quick search with my name in it would reveal those thoughts of mine. IOW, far be it from me to “advise” the Pope! I’m speaking, rather, of what I see, as a woman, are the deficits in many lay women as to what they understand about men, women, and the (many) roles of both within the Church, as well as the dignity and value of both. However, that not only speaks to poor catechesis, it speaks i.m.o., to a very poor foundation in spirituality. All anyone needs to do is to become well-acquainted with Church history, deep scripture, and the lives of the Saints to know both intuitively and intellectually what could be called a theology of women.

The even more critical aspect of the spirituality that is missing is the refusal to obey the Magisterium (“because they’re men”), or to consider magisterial teachings as definitive or even guiding. The attitude of dismissiveness is a transparent mark of a lack of developed Catholic spirituality. IOW, perhaps I am less hopeful than you (more skeptical), that the women who supposedly need to hear/read such a new document will actually be changed by it.

Just as real men are tender, real, modern, active, professional, 21-st century committed Catholic women, living their faith, pray. And if they have no use for such a “passive activity” as prayer, they cannot call themselves committed Catholic women, i.m.o. That would make them (like it makes similar men) lukewarm Catholics… Rather, committed women, as part of that identity, have a developed, adult spirituality that conforms to the Church instead of opposing the Church. The constant agitating-for-something-more is a sign that a woman has not begun to understand, let alone respect, the leaders of the Church as apostolic successors of Christ Himself. By itself, I do not see a document (encyclical, apostolic letter, whatever) as changing the hearts of women who are determined to view the Church with secular eyes.

Since V2, catechesis has declined to a pitiful state, and the recognition of a need for personal spirituality has suffered even more. More than ever, the laity perceives Catholicism to be a Sunday-only reality, and “will only go” if it’s modern, fun, all-English, social, makes them “feel important and special,” they can spend as little effort as is legal to dress for it, and makes no demands on them. They also mistakenly perceive Catholicism to be irrelevant to the civic square, which is of course the opposite of Church teaching, and is borne from the heresy of Americanism. I do not see a papal document as changing any of that.

The way to become an empowered Catholic woman is (a) to become informed of the Church’s already rich understanding of women (its theology and its spirituality), and (b) to spend time on ones knees.

N.B.: Also true for men.

This is beautifully articulated, and hits the nail squarely on the head, praise God!

I thank our Heavenly Father for Pope Francis and his openness to the concerns of “the world”, which is clueless about Catholicism! I’m not sure what Francis means about a “deeper theology” for women, because it’s already awesomely deep, as Elizabeth502 and others have pointed out, on this thread. Most women, and men, haven’t even scratched the surface of what’s already there! But I’m intrigued to see where the Pope takes us with this!