Pope Francis Assigns Vatican Office to Promote Women's Participation

[Elizabeth3]

That’s fine. Your comment just reminded me of her.

 

[angel12]

It isn’t a legal requirement, but it’s generally what’s expected and what’s been done in the past. Theoretically, the Prime Minister could make his Cabinet up of entirely non MPs if he wanted to, but it never happens.

And yet you called your Prime Minister a “Court Jester” for not doing something that is not required, because he wanted the best-qualified people.

 

[semper_catholicus]

I didn’t call him a Court Jester for that reason specifically. He does a lot of stupid stuff. Like, really stupid stuff.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

The problem with your position and Semper’s position is that even if he truly found that 50% of the folks qualified for their jobs were female you would not believe him. Your own beliefs about quotas make it impossible for him to act in any honest way unless it is exactly as you would have it. Your reasoning is faulty.

 

[Elizabeth3]

What exactly are my beliefs about quotas since you seem to know?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Well… you said:

Because when people talk about ensuring things are 50/50, then it does bring to mind the question of whether either the men or women were hired due to competency or sex. Was there a point where a few more highly competent people of either sex were passed by in order to achieve a predetermined percentage of sex? It’s not just a slap in the face to the women. It’s a slap in the face to both.

If this is not representative of your beliefs I apologize…

 

[LoyalViews]

As a side not, our parish had something like this back in the sixties. My grandmother was part of the committee, and they decided to have cake and tea after Mass. This left many families without Sunday dinner. It’s quite comical thinking about it that way

Our parishes here are run by women. Efficiently, financially stable, beautiful. Each altar is decked with flowers and polished statue, shining crucifix, and even men contribute to the effort. I doubt this whole thing promotes women’s ordination, and I welcome it, even as a traditionalist.

A woman does what a man cannot, and a man does what a woman cannot.

 

[Elizabeth3]

I was talking about the impression that many people who don’t like imposed quotas get (whether by the company/government agency or law), because it does do a disservice to those who worked hard to get those positions because it brings into question whether they are there based on merit or sex.

That’s why I linked the Forbes article. When Trudeau was asked about his cabinet, he could have mentioned that he picked the best and most qualified candidates. That would have been to his cabinet’s credit. The vague “because it’s 2015” left a lot to interpretation. Was it because in 2015 you’d expect to see a 50/50 split because there are competent people of both sexes or was it because in 2015 you should ensure that percentage based on sex to make sure things are fair? If I was in his Cabinet and worked my tail off to be there, I would prefer he refer to everyone’s competency and merit and leave it at that. “Because it’s 2015” actually sounds like something an inexperienced teen would say rather than a professional, IMO."

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Why on earth should it be assumed that he did anything other than choose the most competent people for each job merely because more of them are women than was the case previously? That’s really a slap in the face to the women he chose, and women in general.

Because when people talk about ensuring things are 50/50, then it does bring to mind the question of whether either the men or women were hired due to competency or sex. Was there a point where a few more highly competent people of either sex were passed by in order to achieve a predetermined percentage of sex? It’s not just a slap in the face to the women. It’s a slap in the face to both.

Therefore, given that women are also roughly half of Canada’s workforce, a 50/50 split should be roughly the norm and expected rather than worthy of comment.

But is the workforce at those few coveted top jobs roughly 50/50? Not because women aren’t competent to fill those positions but because women generally are less likely to seek them out when prioritizing family and what they want for their lives. Let’s face it. Those top jobs are brutal in terms of any kind of a personal or family life whether male or female.

Even if there is an even percentage at the top, those people worked really hard to achieve that level of success. I would think it would be quite disheartening to find out that there were quotas involved to fill the positions. It’s one thing if Trudeau hired the best and that’s just how things came out but another if it was planned that way.

Gender Quotas in Hiring Drive Away Both Women and Men

If the “top jobs are brutal” regardless of gender, or particularly brutal on women for some reason, is the solution really simply to hire fewer women? Or should we instead look at making the jobs themselves more manageable?

Again, why the suspicion of a quota of some kind rather than merit, assuming merit and competence are equal between the genders? And why the apparent willingness to accept an imbalance in favour of men as just being “the way things are” and not symptomatic of unfair discrimination against women - again, assuming merit and competence are equal?

 

[Elizabeth3]

If the “top jobs are brutal” regardless of gender, or particularly brutal on women for some reason, is the solution really simply to hire fewer women? Or should we instead look at making the jobs themselves more manageable?

To make them more manageable, of course. One of the reasons those jobs are so brutal is because of misplaced priorities due to consumerism and valuing money over people. Who said anything about hiring fewer women? You’re making a lot of assumptions about why some things are being questioned and you seem to be assuming it’s a desire to have less women working. No one is saying that.

Again, why the suspicion of a quota of some kind rather than merit, assuming merit and competence are equal between the genders? And why the apparent willingness to accept an imbalance in favour of men as just being “the way things are” and not symptomatic of unfair discrimination against women - again, assuming merit and competence are equal?

Oh, come on. It’s no secret that many radical feminists and those who are left-leaning politically are quite happy to demand that quotas be made into policy and law. Many government agencies and companies feel tremendous pressure to do just that. Why wouldn’t there be a suspicion of filling a quota with a vague answer like “Because it’s 2015.” Why not just commend those he chose for their skill and merit and leave it at that?

And again, you are making assumptions. Who said anything about “the apparent willingness to accept an imbalance in favor of men as just being “the way things are” and not symptomatic of unfair discrimination against women - again, assuming merit and competence are equal?” I said above it would be fine to see 75% women and 25% men (or vice versa), if hiring was always done on merit as it should be.

I could also ask “If it was balanced in favor of men, would you assume it was because there was some unjust discrimination or because that was just how things came out as far as choosing the best of the best with the available labor pool at that time?”

 

[phil19034]

You’re obviously entitled to your position, but as someone living in a country where only boys are allowed to serve, I find it silly to turn away a girl just because there’s a possibility of a boy becoming a future priest.

phil19034:

NOTE: please do not reference altar servers, lectors, and EMHC (where a priest has the right to limit entry to the sanctuary to men during mass)

But why not? Isn’t that an area of concern if a priest thinks only men should carry out these roles if the Church as a whole is not opposed to women doing that?

Lea,
I only said that because I wanted examples from the poster I was responding to. That person was claiming that women were prevented from leadership positions, and I wanted to know which positions (not liturgical positions).

In regards to altar servers, I personally do not think Altar girls are bad, but I do think they way most churches run the Altar Servers after Vatican II is a waisted opportunity.

There are priests & Cardinals who feel that a good altar boy program can lead to the priesthood.

I’m personally in favor of creating two vocations programs for kids. One that teaches boys how to be Priests (the Altar Servers Guild program that actually gets back to teaching boys how to be priests and that meets during the week for practice and formation).

And a program similar for girls that teaches them what it’s like to be a nun. A program like Blessed Imelda Lambertini Society sounds great to me.

God Bless

 

[phil19034]

I’m addressing the topic of the thread and how things have change in the Church over the course of history.

Women today seek a bigger share of decision making within the Church and Pope Francis is listening.

This upsets people because they fear that women will be ordained to the priesthood.

Jim

I will admit… I have two potential issues with this “more power to women thing.”

1. I do fear people will use it as cuter excuses to attempt to ordain women (even if it never is seriously considered, it MAY cause more heated arguments
2. If lay men have no power in the hierarchy of the Church, I don’t understand why lay women should have power. If you want to create some lay Cardinals again, then require 10 cardinals to be lay people (5 lay men and 5 lay women). But it’s not right to give lay women power that lay men don’t have.

NOTE: I do NOT have an issue with anything Pope Francis is doing in regards to this at this time.

God Bless

 

[phil19034]

Pretty much, lol. I have seen guys in the Church who would basically insist and praise women doing all the heavy lifting behind the scenes. But unfortunately, behind the scenes is what they want. They would freak out over female altar servers, female emhc or female teachers in the seminary. A bunch of catholic youth ministers in the US have talked about similar attitudes they received, but I don’t follow much on them?

Lea,

Those guys are call jerks. Jerks are everywhere.

 

[Lea101]

yes, they are. Unfortunately such attitudes seem quite normal, and sometimes labeled as part of ‘traditional catholicism’, where one believes women must joyfully remain in the background. And when anyone speaks against this, they’re power hungry…worldly and so on.

Because of this, it’s really difficult to have such conversations in the Church.

 

[Arbovirus]

What positions of authority given to women would satisfy those claiming gender inequality within the Church?

 

[phil19034]

yes, they are. Unfortunately such attitudes seem quite normal, and sometimes labeled as part of ‘traditional catholicism’, where one believes women must joyfully remain in the background. And when anyone speaks against this, they’re power hungry…worldly and so on.

Because of this, it’s really difficult to have such conversations in the Church.

Yeah, but that’s really a small (yet vocal) minority of Catholics world wide. And even the vast majority of people who want to see only men in the Sanctuary have no issue with women working for the Church in important positions which can be filled by lay people.

BTW - it depends what you mean by “background.” If you mean “background” at mass, that’s one thing. If you mean “background” in religious life and Church business, that’s a totally different thing.

Reason: there are a number of people who want to see all lay people (male and female) take more of a background role at mass. So it’s less about the woman thing, and more about them being lay.

But anyone who thinks women should be in the background of in regards to the religious life & Church business is a jerk.

God Bless

 

[Lea101]

Reason: there are a number of people who want to see all lay people (male and female) take more of a background role at mass. So it’s less about the woman thing, and more about them being lay.

I was referring to people wanting women out, not just lay people. For example, I’m not sure if you have seen an old thread where a guy said that he only wants to receive Communion from a man (either lay men or the priest) because women’s hands are not meant for such a role. Something weird like that lol

I have always find it weird to insist on ‘male only’ areas when the Church had made it clear that it’s alright for women to participate.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Reason: there are a number of people who want to see all lay people (male and female) take more of a background role at mass. So it’s less about the woman thing, and more about them being lay.

I was referring to people wanting women out, not just lay people. For example, I’m not sure if you have seen an old thread where a guy said that he only wants to receive Communion from a man (either lay men or the priest) because women’s hands are not meant for such a role. Something weird like that lol

I have always find it weird to insist on ‘male only’ areas when the Church had made it clear that it’s alright for women to participate.

Yes, that’s silly. However, I can understand if a person only wants to receive communion from a Deacon, Priest, or Bishop. Personally, I’m always “bummed” when my pews get “stuck” with a lay person (male or female). My preference is to receive from the main celebrant, and secondary preference is from another bishop, priest or deacon at the mass.

But back to people who don’t want a woman EMHC. A woman’s hands are no different than a lay man’s hands. If a person is willing to receive communion from a lay man, then there is no theological reason why they should not be willing to receive from a woman.

God Bless!

PS: now, if they only want men in the Sanctuary so everyone can be dressed in a cassock and surplice, then that’s a different argument. But that only works if EVERYONE is in a cassock & surplice.

 

[anon10271182]

“some people will not be happy unless they see a female pope (let alone female deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals, etc”

Yes indeed. And it’s my guess that some of those “some people” also want to see unholy matrimony “celebrated” in the Church.

In nearly all “mainstream” denominations that have instated the former, the latter has soon followed.

 

[anon10271182]

“Personally, I’m always “bummed” when my pews get “stuck” with a lay person (male or female). My preference is to receive from the main celebrant, and secondary preference is from another bishop, priest or deacon at the mass.”

I’ve seen people cross lines for this very reason. In some parishes I sit on the left, because I know that’s the priest line. Of course it’s never an issue in my FSSP parish!