Pope Francis wants greater roles for women in the Church.

[Elizabeth502]

I think you’re mis-characterizing my post with this comment. I was not speaking of parish business,

That’s fine, but you failed at the time to specify what you meant and what you did not mean. “Day-to-day business” could refer in fact to parish business.

but rather global church business such as the operations of the Vatican Bank.

I doubt that the majority of Catholics (including me) would disagree with this as a possibility. That was most definitely not clear from your earlier postings as one example of an appropriate option.

As for the day-to-day operations of each parish, that’s a whole nother can of worms.

Worms or not, women have definitely been players, in small and large degrees, for certain day-to-day operations of the parish. That would include being on paid staff at parishes, heading parish councils, etc. Some such duties are operational in nature, and thus “day-to-day,” and many of these are in fact leadership positions. The difference is, **they are not, and should not, be involved in what is specific to the ministerial priesthood alone, and for that reason, roles in clerical leadership (including that of Cardinal) are inappropriate and illogical. **

And I’m confused by your post. Are you saying men are staying away because women run the parishes? If so, are you saying women should have less responsibility in the church and be replaced by men so more men will attend mass? Most importantly, do you have any statistics that support your argument that mass attendance is currently 80 percent and would move to 98 percent female? I haven’t witnessed that in my own parish at all.

Several responses:
(1) for anything outside of Sunday Mass, there’s an even split at your parish events (devotions, weekday Masses, adult catechesis including Catholic reading groups, scripture study, etc.)? If so, your parish is atypical. The only situation in which I’ve seen about an even split at, for example, weekday Masses, is the occasion of EF weekday Masses. (My experience appears to be the current norm across the country.) In my region, men flock to weekday EF Masses, when available. By contrast, they are a tiny minority at weekday English Masses offered at the same times, so obviously their absence has nothing to do with their possibly being at work. So again, the “80%” is not the Sunday Mass attendance (which is more like 65%), but weekdays.

(2) These same EF-inclusive parishes tend to be characterized by male leadership. It’s not so much that women are “excluded.” It’s much more that the day-to-day operations eliminate fluff and token “duties,” concentrating instead on the work of the Church: the salvation of souls, and everything universally and directly related to that. That includes all-male altar boys and the absence of any EMHC’s whatsoever, including male.

In such parishes ^ men can be seen as active outside of Mass occasions as well, including adult catechesis, study groups, and definitely devotions such as rosary, Chaplet, Benediction, First Friday, frequent confession, etc.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is just a ‘let’s skip womenpriests and go straight to womencardinals’ thread.

I agree. Pretty absurd.

 

[edwest2]

I disagree in part and agree in part. Let’s start with the negative so we can finish on the positive. The Church can hardly be blamed for the existence of radical leftist feminism but she does have to continue her mission and growth in Christ notwithstanding the, so to speak, environment she finds herself in; but I cannot at all agree that the Church’s call or desire for a greater role for women in her life and ministry can at all be “all about power”; if that were so, then she wouldn’t be making such a call or expressing such a desire in the first place.

I agree -though I do not think radical feminism can be entirely blamed for this, I think it’s part and parcel of a broader social trend that it as old as the fall of man- that too many people are liable to associate or interpret - even perhaps our shepherds and pastors - “a greater role for women” as meaning “more authority over others” and even worse, simply “more power”, in the sense of determination and domination: i.e. dictatorially. Now of course that simply doesn’t jive with Christian logic about authority and power anyways, even if there was a necessary link (there is not) between “a greater role for women in the Church” and “more authority/power for women (presumably clerical or connected to Holy Orders).”

Firstly, in the Church, authority and “power” comes from, one: being-sent (mission or commissioned, ultimately by God and in accordance with his will); and, two: being-servant to others (ministry); it is not a “lordly” mentality or a mentality of “over-lording” or “lording over” others. Exactly so, a greater role for women does not, as such, have any connection at all to Holy Orders or juiridical authority in the Church.

However, “a greater role” does mean, of course, something. From a sort of Human Resources Department perspective, we might well interpret it as a call for the Church to consider what more women can do in and for the Church - a sort of wiser use of the resources the Holy Spirit gives us in Christian women which, no doubt, is of enormous potential, and how we can realize that potential. Still, the idea -to be fair to it- does invoke a more active part for women in the life and mission of the Church, which cannot possibly happen without greater association or participation with the clergy.

But no doubt it does mean a real and greater participation of women in the active leadership or decision-making process of the Church. This, of course, can in no way prejudice what is of divine constitution for the Church; notwithstanding, insofar as nothing is so prejudiced, there is freedom for the Church to make changes that can allow women a greater share and perhaps, in a certain sense, responsibility in or for the Church ad maiorem Dei gloriam. I think it is very important to keep in mind - as the Holy Father himself pointed to - Our Lady as we try to work out and understand what might be the Spirit’s desire and God’s will in this calling of the Church to thinking about and realizing this greater role for women in God’s holy church.

Peace to you too, Ed,
August.

You know, this just sounds like:

1. Get women into positions of power.
2. Get women involved in the decision-making process because that’s what radical feminists want.
3. Then - the no surprise part. “As Cardinals and as Wimmin, we propose the election of a Female Pope because (A) it’s the 21st Century, (B) Why not? (C) We know all you men are just in it for yourselves and you’re discriminating against us because all men want to do is keep women down and out of positions of power and we demand power.” Or whatever they can get away with.

Anybody who thinks the Church is a corporation is missing the obvious about this topic. The Church, to the radical feminists, is just a power structure and they want to change it. It’s simple. That’s the goal. Push the Church in the direction of a bunch of secular radicals who have turned women against themselves.

1. You are no longer feminine. You can’t use the word Miss or Mrs. It must be Ms. because we have decreed it. It marks you as one of us (against the evil them).
2. You shall get a career. If YOU, and only you, want kids, you shall put them in daycare, throw food and clothes in their general direction, and kick them out of the house at 18.
3. You shall get divorced. You will be praised for that.
4. You will use birth control and be willing to abort.
5. Dating doesn’t matter, only sex does.
6. If a man says he loves you, he’s lying. Always.

I’ll wait on the Pope.

Peace,
Ed

 

[CB_Catholic]

vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/homilies/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20131013_omelia-giornata-mariana_en.html

Clearly in God’s eyes, service and leadership are not about power or position, they are about following God’s call.

What I want to know is why when women come forward to serve in the Church in a greater capacity it is seen by so many on these forums as a grab for power, yet when men come forward, it is lauded as service to the Church.

I suspect, and it will be heavily denied, that many men who complain about women having expanded roles in the Church feel a little threatened, as that means they just might have less “power” (their term) than they had before. Why is this seen as a power struggle for women, but not for men?

I once asked on these forums why a woman in the sanctuary, as an EMHC or reader, violated the holiness of the sanctuary (as stated by a male poster), and received not one single answer to that question, except a post that acknowledged no one had answered. I found that rather telling. That position cannot be defended.

There is not a whole lot of honesty surrounding the issue of women’s role in the Church, and I suspect this Pope recognizes that.

 

[1AugustSon7]

vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/homilies/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20131013_omelia-giornata-mariana_en.html

Clearly in God’s eyes, service and leadership are not about power or position, they are about following God’s call.

Excellent quote: thank you!

 

[edwest2]

What I want to know is why when women come forward to serve in the Church in a greater capacity it is seen by so many on these forums as a grab for power, yet when men come forward, it is lauded as service to the Church.

I suspect, and it will be heavily denied, that many men who complain about women having expanded roles in the Church feel a little threatened, as that means they just might have less “power” (their term) than they had before. Why is this seen as a power struggle for women, but not for men?

I once asked on these forums why a woman in the sanctuary, as an EMHC or reader, violated the holiness of the sanctuary (as stated by a male poster), and received not one single answer to that question, except a post that acknowledged no one had answered. I found that rather telling. That position cannot be defended.

There is not a whole lot of honesty surrounding the issue of women’s role in the Church, and I suspect this Pope recognizes that.

Until the Pope announces what those greater roles are, all I’m seeing here is speculation favoring the “more power” aspect for women, and not the service aspect. Like all Catholics, I will follow what Pope Francis decides. The “speculation” here all centers on the “roles people want.” And they all reflect a secular/modernist mindset.

Peace,
Ed

 

[clem456]

Until the Pope announces what those greater roles are, all I’m seeing here is speculation favoring the “more power” aspect for women, and not the service aspect. Like all Catholics, I will follow what Pope Francis decides. The “speculation” here all centers on the “roles people want.” And they all reflect a secular/modernist mindset.

Peace,
Ed

What do you think of the Church’s Marian theology that has been talked about here and referenced by the Pope? Do you agree that Mary is the first disciple and mother of the Church?

 

[agnes_therese]

I’ll wait on the Pope.

I wish everyone would. Of course, then we’d be missing pages and pages of arguments . . .

 

[Elizabeth502]

What do you think of the Church’s Marian theology that has been talked about here and referenced by the Pope? Do you agree that Mary is the first disciple and mother of the Church?

Question not addressed to me, but the short answer is that a disciple =/= an apostle..

All women are called to be Jesus’ disciples, many of those in disciple leadership.

 

[1AugustSon7]

You know, this just sounds like:

1. Get women into positions of power . . .

I am sorry you interpreted it that way Ed.

Acts 1:12 Then, from the mountain which is called Olivet, they went back to Jerusalem; the distance from Jerusalem is not great, a sabbath day’s journey. 13 Coming in, they went up into the upper room where they dwelt, Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the brother of James. 14 All these, with one mind, gave themselves up to prayer, together with Mary the mother of Jesus, and the rest of the women and his brethren.[3]

I find it interesting that of those named at the Church in Jerusalem first listed are the Apostles (and Peter first of these), then Our Lady, then the other women, then “his * brethren”. The Apostles - The Women - The Lord’s own Brethren. And it is obvious from the mentioning of the apostles first with Peter first that a certain priority is being deliberately followed. Perhaps Saint Luke is basing this in part on the hierarchical structure combined with the Lord’s own decision of whom to appear to first; but Our Lady precedes “the other women”, though this does not appear to have been sequence followed in the biblical data. So, again, we would appear to be dealing with some sort of organizational or relational structure and sequence being followed in Acts 1:12-14.

Be that as it may, and as I wrote and argued for in my previous post, I do not interpret “greater roles for women in the Church” as meaning “women taking over leadership responsibility just 'cuz they are women from men” and certainly excluded such a possibility when it came to the divine constitution of the Church, which places the Apostles and their successors first; who, moreover, as we know, can only be and must be specifically men - male - “vir”.

And again notwithstanding, I see no issue with women being in leadership roles which, at most, I think is only one part or aspect and perhaps even the least part or aspect of the idea; but leadership roles in, e.g., devotional life and many other fields and activities is fine. Still, we are talking specifically about women, so we might want to think about things that specifically or especially women are apt to provide and contribute to the Church’s life. Certainly we are not simply talking about replacing men with women “just 'cuz” they are women: that is silly, childish and absurd and I would agree such thinking is just feminsm at both its silliest and its ugliest.*

 

[edwest2]

What do you think of the Church’s Marian theology that has been talked about here and referenced by the Pope? Do you agree that Mary is the first disciple and mother of the Church?

Reading the topic title, all it says to me is “Pope Francis wants [still undefined] greater roles for women in the Church.” And that was followed by 'I’m betting he gives us - or should give us - what we want." The Pope will tell us, in due time, what he wants those roles to be, and I will accept what he says.

Peace,
Ed

 

[clem456]

Question not addressed to me, but the short answer is that a disciple =/= an apostle..

All women are called to be Jesus’ disciples, many of those in disciple leadership.

You’re right, about all of that.
That’s a really nice contribution Elizabeth.

 

[1AugustSon7]

The “speculation” here … all reflect a secular/modernist mindset.

Come on Ed, that statement - to put it most mildly and charitably - is neither accurate nor fair.

Edit: Added: Moreover, I think the Pope isn’t just thinking out loud in order to hear his own thoughts; I think he is saying these things exactly because he wants to generate a discussion in the Church, from which prompting conversation he is most likely seeking ideas or thoughts that are edifying, wholesome and helpful: i.e., he wants to hear what the Holy Spirit, through the Church and the voice of God’s people, wants for the Church on this topic, that he might then implement it for the Church.

 

[clem456]

Reading the topic title, all it says to me is “Pope Francis wants [still undefined] greater roles for women in the Church.” And that was followed by 'I’m betting he gives us - or should give us - what we want." The Pope will tell us, in due time, what he wants those roles to be, and I will accept what he says.

Peace,
Ed

I am just observing your response to another poster’s well thought out post. You said “all I’m seeing here is”, and talked about some of society’s ill’s that weren’t really discussed in the post you were responding to. I just wondered if you missed some of the posts on Marian theology and the fact that she is the first disciple and Mother of the Church. What do you think about that?

 

[edwest2]

Come on Ed, that statement - to put it most mildly and charitably - is neither accurate nor fair.

Edit: Added: Moreover, I think the Pope isn’t just thinking out loud in order to hear his own thoughts; I think he is saying these things exactly because he wants to generate a discussion in the Church, from which prompting conversation he is most likely seeking ideas or thoughts that are edifying, wholesome and helpful: i.e., he wants to hear what the Holy Spirit, through the Church and the voice of God’s people, wants for the Church on this topic, that he might then implement it for the Church.

Pope Francis has advisors with the knowledge and wisdom he needs to help him, along with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He will not stray into uncharted territory just because a few think he might or want him to. To put it charitably, there are those who want the Church to do something wrong to satisfy their own desires. They are making their voices heard. And the nonsense has snowballed:

washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/could-pope-francis-make-women-cardinals-a-pipe-dream-and-an-opening/2013/10/17/b3d9fcec-376c-11e3-89db-8002ba99b894_story.html

Pope Francis will not violate canon law.

Peace,
Ed

 

[1AugustSon7]

Pope Francis has advisors with the knowledge and wisdom he needs to help him, along with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He will not stray into uncharted territory just because a few think he might or want him to. To put it charitably, there are those who want the Church to do something wrong to satisfy their own desires. They are making their voices heard. And the nonsense has snowballed:

washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/could-pope-francis-make-women-cardinals-a-pipe-dream-and-an-opening/2013/10/17/b3d9fcec-376c-11e3-89db-8002ba99b894_story.html

Pope Francis will not violate canon law.

Peace,
Ed

The devil is always going to try to foul up and try to frustrate the Church on earth and stir up confusion, discord and pointless or triffling or misleading debate and speculation. Notwithstanding, the Church must go on. And I agree: the Pope does, of course, have advisers. But he also has a small city-state called the Vatican filled with thousands of rooms, both large and small, where he could easily have a quiet and private conversation or regular meetings with those advisors; or, if they are not all in town, I am sure the Vatican has the kind of skilled personnel who could organize a telephone conference or whatever.

In other words, Ed, if the Pope didn’t want the whole Church (at least) participating in this discussion and debate, then he could have kept it private or merely said that we inside the Curia are discussing this and we will make a decision and let you know; however, he has not done this. He opened up this topic before the whole Church; that is why I said what I said in my “edit:added” in my previous post: i.e. that was the basis of it. I stand by my interpretation: the Pope wants to generate a discussion and listen to what the Church has to say and then he will likely make a decision though, of course, he is hardly bound to anyone’s opinion or even to making a decision at all.

 

[Memaw]

That quote is distilled from his writings, and accurately reflects them…

Ask Fr. Pacwa, he said St Francis never said it. But it has run like wildfire. God Bless, Memaw

 

[TimothyH]

What I want to know is why when women come forward to serve in the Church in a greater capacity it is seen by so many on these forums as a grab for power, yet when men come forward, it is lauded as service to the Church.

I suspect, and it will be heavily denied, that many men who complain about women having expanded roles in the Church feel a little threatened, as that means they just might have less “power” (their term) than they had before. Why is this seen as a power struggle for women, but not for men?

I once asked on these forums why a woman in the sanctuary, as an EMHC or reader, violated the holiness of the sanctuary (as stated by a male poster), and received not one single answer to that question, except a post that acknowledged no one had answered. I found that rather telling. That position cannot be defended.

There is not a whole lot of honesty surrounding the issue of women’s role in the Church, and I suspect this Pope recognizes that.

I welcome correction on this…

Eastern Catholics have a strong Tradition which holds that Mary was brought to the Temple by her parents Joachim and Anne at the age of three to be consecrated to the service of God. She was led into the Holy of Holies by the father of John the Baptist, the High Priest Zechariah, and there she danced before the Ark of God. She stayed in the temple for nine years and did not want to leave except for death or marriage.

Prior to these events, no man could come in contact with God except by entering the Holy of Holies and then only the priest once each year. Aside from the priest once each year, Mary was the first to come in contact with God inside the Holy of Holies, and then later in her womb before he became visible to creation. Mary became the temple in which God dwelt and now we are the living temples where God the Holy Spirit dwells. Mary was the first to be the temple of the living God and we are now temples of the Holy Spirit.

Man is now free. God dwells with man rather than man traveling to the Temple to be in the presence of God.

And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them; (Revelation 21:2-3)

Mary became the Holy of Holies and her entrance marks the end of the Temple as the dwelling place of God. Mary inaugurates the new temple. It is out of respect for Mary that no woman entered the Holy of Holies. She was the first and no woman need go there.

The Eastern Churches celebrate the Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos on Nov 21.

-Tim-

 

[Horacio]

Good questions. We’ve had a female pastoral associate for 15 years in our parish. They are responsible for adult ed, sacrament prep classes, youth classes (psr), all under the supervision of the pastor of course. A woman runs the RCIA program with the assistance of the associate pastor. We have a normal demographic of men and women mass attendance. No men are turned off by having women serve as catechists, lectors, emhcs, altar servers, cantors, etc…

Why are mostly women filling these positions? Cause men don’t, and the women who step up are willing and qualified to do it. We need their gifts, inspiration, and commitment in the Church.

There is a very destructive phenomenon that has truly taken a terrible toll at my parish. Over the past few decades almost all the visible and liturgical ministries have become headed and largely staffed by females. At least 90% are females. The long-standing excuse is that men did not want to be involved which was simply not true. If you were not a female and not a member of the insider’s track (outsider females were also shunned), you would rarely be allowed to serve in such a ministry and you would never be allowed to head one.

After three or four decades this practice has taken a terrible toll on my parish. Truly horrific. It is true today that almost no one (male or female) wants to serve in these ministries at my parish today because people don’t want to be associated with those in charge or the damage they have done (driving souls away from the parish or the Church altogether.) One day we might get a pastor that will clean things up once and for all but I’m not holding my breath.

One thing I know is that a pastor needs to be closely involved with such ministries and there needs to definite lengths to serving in such ministries. Maybe it’s something like “3 on and 3 off” but lifetime readers, EMHCs, altar servers, really take a toll in some parishes.

 

[TimothyH]

There is a very destructive phenomenon that has truly taken a terrible toll at my parish. Over the past few decades almost all the visible and liturgical ministries have become headed and largely staffed by females. At least 90% are females. The long-standing excuse is that men did not want to be involved which was simply not true. If you were not a female and not a member of the insider’s track (outsider females were also shunned), you would rarely be allowed to serve in such a ministry and you would never be allowed to head one.

After three or four decades this practice has taken a terrible toll on my parish. Truly horrific. It is true today that almost no one (male or female) wants to serve in these ministries at my parish today because people don’t want to be associated with those in charge or the damage they have done (driving souls away from the parish or the Church altogether.) One day we might get a pastor that will clean things up once and for all but I’m not holding my breath.

One thing I know is that a pastor needs to be closely involved with such ministries and there needs to definite lengths to serving in such ministries. Maybe it’s something like “3 on and 3 off” but lifetime readers, EMHCs, altar servers, really take a toll in some parishes.

Imputing selfish motives to all women because of your negative experience at one parish isn’t right.

-Tim-