Pope Francis wants greater roles for women in the Church.

  • Thread starter Thread starter triumphguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jon_Paul said:
I dislike the notion that the Papacy must reflect diversity. The Pope is properly the Bishop of Rome. He is elected by the Roman clergy (the Cardinals all possess Roman churches). When was the last time you heard of a Brazillian being appointed Archbishop or Warsaw? Or a Croat being appointed to Vietnam?

The particular Church of Rome is a real thing and its integrity should be respected. It’s a true local and individual Church. Yes it occupies an integral part of the Church, its bishop exercises supreme judicial and doctrinal authority. I have no problem with not having a Pope from my own community or background. I don’t need it to feel like I belong any more than I already do. I don’t need an Irishman’s face on Saint Peter’s Chair to make sure “everyone gets a shot”. I also find it highly amusing that in such an age where pastoral care is of such concern to the men and women of the Church, that they’d elect a bishop to a See where he’s barely spent any time and has a bare minimal competence with the native language. Lovely.

The Bishopric of Rome should only be available to Italians. Preference for one of the clergy of Rome itself. And the Cardinals likewise limited to Romans and Italians for the most part.
Click to expand...
While the Pope is the official Bishop of Rome, the Pope has not be the day to day administrator of the local “Diocese of Rome.” The Vicar General of Rome (a Cardinal) and the Vicegerent (currently an Archbishop) have they day to day managment of the diocese. The Vicegerent receives the title of Archbishop which the sea is demands (since the Pope and Vicar Generals always have a rank higher than Archbishop).

The Pope is the leader of ALL Catholics. Not just the Roman Rite. Coptic Catholics, Byz. Catholics, etc… all Pope is leader of all.

Now the Vicargerent is almost always Italian and the Vicar General of Rome is currently Italian.

As far as the Cardinals, all of the Patriarchs of the Ancient Patriarchates (who head up their own Rite or Church) become Cardinal-Bishops. Finally, since the Pope is leader the entire Catholic Church, he must have advisors from all around the world. Not just Italy.
 
CatholicHockey7 said:
This may very well be the case. That is why I submit to the authority of the Church and those who have spent far more time studying the faith than I have.

To clarify my point, the only reason I would suggest having women as part of the College of Cardinals is to give women a stronger voice in the decision-making process of the Church.

But for the reasons you’ve mentioned and others, this may not be possible.
Click to expand...
You cannot have a non-bishop voting for the head bishop. You don’t have employees of a major corporation voting for a new CEO. You have a board of directors, which is made up of CEOs and other high level business people, electing the new CEO.

The same is for the Church. The most experienced Bishops elect the Pope and that’s how it should be. They select the leader among their ranks. This is also in the Gospel of Mark, where Jesus fortells how the first amoung equals will be selected.
 
KP3243 said:
Do you really think taking mothers out of the home has been a good thing for our society? Honestly? Most women I know would prefer to be home with their children and taking care of them when they get home from school and provide their families with a happy home. The responsibilities of women in the home didn’t change too much when women started working so they have to work a full day and then still take care of her duties at home. The family has come second and we see what the result is right now.
Click to expand...
Amen!
 
edwest2 said:
The Church is not the Congress or the Senate or the House of Representatives. Just as these institutions have no say in electing a Pope, then your idea makes no sense. The Church operates from the Bible, Tradition and the words and actions of Jesus Christ.

The decisions made by the Church involve the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Period.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I’ve never said the Church was like Congress. I’ve never suggested the general membership vote for our own bishops and cardinals. I’ve suggested the leaders chose a very small, select group of women to serve in a similar capacity as that of the cardinals.

Someone else gave the analogy of a board of directors electing a CEO. My suggestion was to promote some women to that board of directors.

Yes, we operate based on the Bible and Tradition. Three of the most important events in salvation history prominently feature women. Eve (woman) was the first to sin. Through Mary’s “yes” salvation entered the world. And it was not the apostles who were first to witness the resurrection. It was a group of women. The same group of women who did not run away when Christ was crucified. Where were the apostles then?

I fully respect and accept the Church’s teaching on Holy Orders. However, I see nothing preventing a similar position being created that would give women more responsibility in the day-to-day “business” of the church. It is entirely possible I am wrong on this point. That’s why I entrust decisions like this to the Pope and the College of Cardinals. Doesn’t mean I can’t look at the situation with a rational mind and propose a solution. If that solution doesn’t work, oh well.
 
CatholicHockey7 said:
I see nothing preventing a similar position being created that would give women more responsibility in the day-to-day “business” of the church.
Click to expand...
What kind of “day-to-day business” do you imagine they’d be qualified to share responsibility for, with men who are operating that business on an entirely different level than any lay or religious woman has access to?

By comparison, when women began to serve more widely in the armed services, they began training from the ground up. Whatever positions such women now hold, including any oversight positions, they are trained to do. There’s nothing remotely similar for women in the ecclesial structure of the Church.
 
CatholicHockey7 said:
Someone else gave the analogy of a board of directors electing a CEO. My suggestion was to promote some women to that board of directors.
Click to expand...
Almost all members of a corporate Board of Directors have either CEO, CFO or Legal experience. In the Church, the only people who have the knowledge and experience needed are the most experienced Bishops. Not Priests, laymen, etc. The Cardinals are also well represented. Archbishops from all over the world (who represent the Dioceses - or “Today’s Catholics”) and the the Cardinals in the Curia (who represent the "history & traditions of the Catholic Church). I’m sorry, but the most educated Mother Superiour does not have the experience required to be a Cardinal. And that’s no disrespect towards Nuns, who I deeply respect - especially when in the Habit.
I fully respect and accept the Church’s teaching on Holy Orders. However, I see nothing preventing a similar position being created that would give women more responsibility in the day-to-day “business” of the church. It is entirely possible I am wrong on this point. That’s why I entrust decisions like this to the Pope and the College of Cardinals. Doesn’t mean I can’t look at the situation with a rational mind and propose a solution. If that solution doesn’t work, oh well.
Click to expand...
In the USA, woman already play a major role in the day-to-day business of our Parishes. They are Pastor Assistants, Directors of Religious Education, Business Managers, Music Directors, Chair of Church committees, etc. They also have high level business positions within our Dioceses too. Perhaps in other countries they do not, and the Pope is simply looking for Women to fulfill the same roles they do in the United States?

Furthermore, IF the Church came up with some kind of non-ordained “female deacon” (don’t know what else to call this thing), it would NOT be what a lot of feminists are wishing for. They would most likely be someone who concentrated on Religious Education, prayer groups, etc. Their function would most likely missionary within the Parish, evangelizing the Parish. They would most likely be a Nun in Habit. And IF they were not a Nun, they would mostly need to be at least a 3rd Order and have a degree in Catholic Theology from a Seminary. Married “female deacons” would most likely be under the same marriage restrictions as male deacons. Meaning, they can only marry before becoming a “Deacon.” ** They would NOT have a role to play in mass and would NOT be able to do the homily.**. You must be Ordained to read the Gospel or give a Homily.

But really, if Jesus wanted women to be priests, he would have had some. Instead, he wanted using that special gift God gave only them… the ability to bare Children.

God Bless.

God Bless!
 
In a few posts above the objection is raised that women don;t have the training or experience necessary to take on leadership positions in the Church.

Think about that for a second…

all it takes is education, training, and opportunity.

So that’s a very weak argument against women in church leadership positions.

BTW the Chancellor of our diocese is a religious sister.
 
CatholicHockey7 said:
However, I see nothing preventing a similar position being created that would give women more responsibility in the day-to-day “business” of the church.
Click to expand...
-What is the spiritual foundation (as in need for) for the creation of such a position?
-One has to have some sort of command authority to be a leader or hold a position of responsibility? That would be news to a lot of WOs, SGMs, and 1SGs in the Army.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Pope Francis said in regards to women’s ordination:

"And, with reference to the ordination of women, the Church has spoken and she said : “No.” John Paul II said it, but with a definitive formulation. That is closed, that door is closed, but I’d like to say something about this. I’ve said it, but I repeat it. Our Lady, Mary, was more important than the Apostles, than bishops, deacons and priests. In the Church, woman is more important than bishops and priests; how, it’s what we must seek to make more explicit, because theological explicitness about this is lacking "

vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-francesco_20130728_gmg-conferenza-stampa_en.html
Click to expand...
Woman is the Christ-bearer. Adam could not “bear” Christ: he needs to be configured to Christ. Only Eve or her daughters could. So whereas biblically we have man (i.e. in the exclusive sense, Adam) first, out of whom God made (literally “built” in the Greek) woman; however, given the fall, the order of things has been -so to speak- turned on its head, because now the salvation and redemption of man presupposes or necessarily requires woman. Only woman could be the Mother of God: the “mother of Jesus”, the “mother of my Lord”. In that sense woman becomes first; and, indeed, we see the protoevangelium (Gen 3.15) being addressed explicitly to her though, of course, it holds hope for all mankind.

This recalls us, I think, to a sense that I fear has been largely obscured if not almost lost in the process of modernity but would seem to be presupposed as universally basic in the times of biblical writing; namely, that woman is the life-bearer. Though to be sure even some ancient societies would lose and obscure this sense. It underlies, I suspect, the universal sense that women are non-combatants because to attack her is to in some sense attack humanity for she is truly “the mother of all the living”.

In Christianity, woman is not only the life-bearer but even elevated to the dignity of being the God-bearer. Perhaps this is why for Saint Paul he sees salvation in woman as being so closely linked to maternity.

But that’s just my theological opining 🙂
 
This is all about power. That’s all. The radical feminist ideal.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
This is all about power. That’s all. The radical feminist ideal.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
  • so are you saying that you don’t think women can serve in leadership roles because will lead to them having power?
  • and do you think that leadership equates with power?
  • or does all leadership have to be clerical?
What does “power” mean in the Church? The ability to change doctrine? Is that what the worry is, that women will not respect Tradition? I see lots of faithful women ion this forum who absolutely respect Tradition.

I for one am not suggesting that women be ordained priests or deacons, or a elevated to the College of Cardinals,
 
edwest2 said:
This is all about power. That’s all. The radical feminist ideal.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
The other side of that would be preserving clerical power now entrusted only to men.

One the other hand that is only worldly power. How much worldly power did Jesus have? Very little. How much personal power? Unmatched. And that is true at the grass root church level as well. One person a may have formal title and authority and another has the hearts and mind of the people, informal authority. And sometiems is is just the desire and time to get involved at the parish level. I look at our parish council (5 women and 9 men). They make things happen and it is a true ministry to the parish not political tokenism and worship of titles.
 
The day that women try to become Priest in our Catholic Church or try to be head of the church,will never happen, because God choose Men to lead and be priest of our Faith. God help others undersatnd.
 
JRKH said:
Actually I don’t see it this way…

To me, it’s not a matter of being “radical” but rather being misguided - and this can occur on both sides.
It strikes me as an emphasis on titles instead of actions…it’s like the Apostles following Jesus and arguing over who will be the greatest in the new kingdom.
Jesus reply to such foolishness is that the one who is the greatest is the one who is the servant of the others.

Men can get off track thinking that they are somehow superior because they can be ordained…and dismiss the contributions of women…and make themselves small because of their pride.
Women can get off track by thinking that they are somehow excluded because they may not be ordained and thus miss opportunities to be of even greater service to God because they are too fixed on a title.

He who is the greatest must be the servant of the others…

We are called to service and our “title” means nothing…

Just some thoughts…

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
triumphguy said:
  • so are you saying that you don’t think women can serve in leadership roles because will lead to them having power?
  • and do you think that leadership equates with power?
  • or does all leadership have to be clerical?
What does “power” mean in the Church? The ability to change doctrine? Is that what the worry is, that women will not respect Tradition? I see lots of faithful women ion this forum who absolutely respect Tradition.

I for one am not suggesting that women be ordained priests or deacons, or a elevated to the College of Cardinals,
Click to expand...
  1. no, I do not think he is saying that.
  2. no, but I think psychologically that fuels not a small amount of lay power-grabbing
  3. no, but clearly clerics are here for more than being Sacrament dispensers
 
phil19034 said:
]Almost all members of a corporate Board of Directors have either CEO, CFO or Legal experience. In the Church, the only people who have the knowledge and experience needed are the most experienced Bishops. Not Priests, laymen, etc. The Cardinals are also well represented. Archbishops from all over the world (who represent the Dioceses - or “Today’s Catholics”) and the the Cardinals in the Curia (who represent the "history & traditions of the Catholic Church). I’m sorry, but the most educated Mother Superiour does not have the experience required to be a Cardinal. And that’s no disrespect towards Nuns, who I deeply respect - especially when in the Habit.
Click to expand...
What I have bolded, is not necessarily correct. I have no views on this issue but a female theologian, for instance, would be qualified.

In the USA, woman already play a major role in the day-to-day business of our Parishes. They are Pastor Assistants, Directors of Religious Education, Business Managers, Music Directors, Chair of Church committees, etc. They also have high level business positions within our Dioceses too. Perhaps in other countries they do not, and the Pope is simply looking for Women to fulfill the same roles they do in the United States?

Furthermore, IF the Church came up with some kind of non-ordained “female deacon” (don’t know what else to call this thing), it would NOT be what a lot of feminists are wishing for. They would most likely be someone who concentrated on Religious Education, prayer groups, etc. Their function would most likely missionary within the Parish, evangelizing the Parish. They would most likely be a Nun in Habit. And IF they were not a Nun, they would mostly need to be at least a 3rd Order and have a degree in Catholic Theology from a Seminary. Married “female deacons” would most likely be under the same marriage restrictions as male deacons. Meaning, they can only marry before becoming a “Deacon.” ** They would NOT have a role to play in mass and would NOT be able to do the homily.**. You must be Ordained to read the Gospel or give a Homily.
But really, if Jesus wanted women to be priests, he would have had some. Instead, he wanted using that special gift God gave only them… the ability to bare Children
Click to expand...
God Bless.
Click to expand...
God Bless!
Click to expand...
No one here is advocating women priests. A woman is not just a mother just as a man is not just a father. What if a woman can’t have children, is not married and not a nun?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top