Priest stripped of his duties after performing Mass with a woman priest

[jwinch2]

…which is a weak way to describe, in my experience and my own self-concept, authentic femininity.

So, because it disagrees with your own self-concept and experience, its wrong? It comes at some things here and there differently than you might like, but by and large it matches up pretty well with what others have written on the subject, to include Blessed Pope John Paul II.

Regardless, I did not post it because I thought it was a tour de force of theology, I posted it because having holy women write about the authentic role of femininity in the Church is a good thing, and their perspective has merit.

 

[jwinch2]

Let me further clarify that men who seek the preisthood for purposes of earthly (or ecclesial) “power” are also lusting after secular power, and for the same wrong reasons misguided women are. A man who actively seeks the priesthood for “position” rather than as a received call is a man who lacks a true vocation.

Which is why it is the Church, not the individual, who determines the authenticity of a potential call to vocation.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I’ll ditto that. I’m fine with a smaller, obedient Church.

I think you should reflect on your words a little longer. I’ll get you started. We are all sinners.

ATB

 

[Elizabeth502]

So, because it disagrees with your own self-concept and experience, its wrong?

Wow. That was harsh, unnecessary, and an over-interpretation of what I said. I didn’t say “wrong.” I said I disagreed with the restricted emphasis, because it is one half of the equation. Women, by our nature, are receptive. This also fits in with our biology, on many levels. However, the activity of True (Authentic) Feminiity is what was completely omitted in that piece. The Authentic Woman combines receptivity and activity, just as the Valiant Woman does in OT.

it matches up pretty well with what others have written on the subject, to include Blessed Pope John Paul II.

From what I have read, he had a far more complete image of women than what is described in the article; that’s all I’m saying. The passage reduces women to a limited mode/description.

Again, I’ll take my experience of Authentic Femininity from the Sisters who taught me. They didn’t write articles about it. They embodied it: the receptive and the active, seamlessly. We women who were taught by them recognized their valor and their sanctity because it struck a chord within our own femininity, and showed us what true power is vs. what the world associates with “power.” That has been the point of several of my posts now, which you seem to have missed, and which was why I drew the point out about Religious Orders who live their original charism instead of seeking phony “ordination.” They understood power in the best and most genuine way.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Which is why it is the Church, not the individual, who determines the authenticity of a potential call to vocation.

And with that I could not agree more !

 

[Tigg]

Again, I’ll take my experience of Authentic Femininity from the Sisters who taught me. They didn’t write articles about it. They embodied it: the receptive and the active, seamlessly. We women who were taught by them recognized their valor and their sanctity because it struck a chord within our own femininity, and showed us what true power is vs. what the world associates with “power.” That has been the point of several of my posts now, which you seem to have missed, and which was why I drew the point out about Religious Orders who live their original charism instead of seeking phony “ordination.” They understood power in the best and most genuine way.

I understand what you are saying, Elizabeth. In the smallest of ways, their quiet message was taught to us by example. They really did not cling to “anything” but being in their presence, we were exposed to their “feminine” grace which awakened within us a yearning to be like they were.

 

[Crescentinus]

Why is it that these “womynpriests” decide to not call themselves priestesses? That really baffles me.

 

[jwinch2]

Wow. That was harsh, unnecessary, and an over-interpretation of what I said.

I fail to see how it was an over-interpretation when you are the one who used your own experience and self-concept as objective criteria. Based upon the criteria you established, you labeled something as weak and stated that you disagreed with it.

 

[adrift]

Wow. That was harsh, unnecessary, and an over-interpretation of what I said. I didn’t say “wrong.” I said I disagreed with the restricted emphasis, because it is one half of the equation. Women, by our nature, are receptive. This also fits in with our biology, on many levels. However, the activity of True (Authentic) Feminiity is what was completely omitted in that piece.

On the contrary, the piece pointed out function is not identity. I believe you missed the point that true femininity and masculinity is submitting to God. That submission will result in action but is not the essence.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I believe you missed the point that true femininity and masculinity is submitting to God.

Umm, I did not at all “miss the point.”

I merely noted, and will note again, the overemphasis on the receptivity aspect.

I have noticed this, by the way, in many articles and other communication in the last 10 years. I think it’s only natural, because of two things: (a) the reaction against society’s extreme counter-emphasis when it comes to the role/understanding of women, and (b) the implicit borrowing of secular re-“definitions,” or should I say, “un-definitions” () of women, into the Church Herself, by many misguided and confused souls. The entire point of such mismatched “borrowing” is that it has precisely resulted in the subject of this thread: the transfer of an imbalanced and manipulated (un)definition of Woman into Church functionality.

It is not I who “miss the point.” It is the secularists (in and out of the Church) who are operating from a distorted understanding of essence vs. function, and of spiritual equality vs. political equality – the latter of which is artificial and temporal, the former which is of the Divine and eternal Order.

However, it continues the distortion to place so much emphasis, in the mere volume of language, on an imbalanced understanding of Woman in an effort to restore that Divine paradigm. The healthy and holy Woman is balanced between receptivity and activity, just as the healthy and holy Man is balanced. (This was brought up recently on Catholic Answers Live by Doug Berry, who was a guest on the show. For men to be true to their nature, he said, requires them to be receptive as well.)

I am contradicting the over-reaction (i.m.o.) which has been apparent in Catholic circles recently – a reaction which, again, I understand and sympathize with. I cannot agree more with the Church’s understanding of man and woman as complementary. Amen. They are not the same; they are not indistinguishable except for physical parts. However, they are not dichotomous. The emphasis in recent years has to imply that they are dichotomous.

Just as men recognize the ideal of manhood when demonstrated visibly in another man whom they respect, so do women. Both are visible and active representations and presences. Maleness and femaleness are not just concepts. They are lived realities, and best understood and incorporated into the human person when they are visible to others. This is why (for example) it is so crucial for children to have a visble male pattern and a visible female pattern in the home, with whom to identify. It has nothing to do with role, but something much deeper than that. Many households --Catholic and not-- include parents with overlapping or even “reverse” roles, yet the genders are distinct and distinguished, which is what makes possible that internal “patterning” for children.

 

[JoeMike]

I’ll ditto that. I’m fine with a smaller, obedient Church.

Somehow I think that if a few disobedient priests are kicked out, the result will be a larger Church, not a smaller one.