Sociology Textbook remark

[aj830]

I have a textbook that I use for a Sociology class and normally I wouldn’t really say anything about it but the teacher I have wrote the textbook… There was a statement in it that bothered me slightly. It was as follows

For, Catholics, the secondary status of women can be seen in that only men are allowed to be priests. Although women are allowed to be nuns, they operate a subservient role to the priest.

This is trying to give an example that gender and it’s affect in religion. My understanding was that women not allowed to be priest has nothing to do with their secondary status and that man and woman are equal. I don’t think he meant any harm but was just misinformed. Should I inform him that this is not a good example and to fix it in his next edition?

 

[beckyann2597]

aj830:

I have a textbook that I use for a Sociology class and normally I wouldn’t really say anything about it but the teacher I have wrote the textbook… There was a statement in it that bothered me slightly. It was as follows

This is trying to give an example that gender and it’s affect in religion. My understanding was that women not allowed to be priest has nothing to do with their secondary status and that man and woman are equal. I don’t think he meant any harm but was just misinformed. Should I inform him that this is not a good example and to fix it in his next edition?

Yes, but I would arm myself with specific vatican articles, or CCC quotes that explain the value of women and men. I would also give a good example of a place where women are second class citizens (Taliban govt).

 

[Catholic2003]

Perhaps the fact that women cannot be permanently installed as lectors or acolytes would be a better example of the “secondary status” of women in the Church, as these restrictions do not come from divine law.

Also, I think there was a “women cardinal” thread a few months back that might have some other information.

 

[thistle]

aj830:

I have a textbook that I use for a Sociology class and normally I wouldn’t really say anything about it but the teacher I have wrote the textbook… There was a statement in it that bothered me slightly. It was as follows

This is trying to give an example that gender and it’s affect in religion. My understanding was that women not allowed to be priest has nothing to do with their secondary status and that man and woman are equal. I don’t think he meant any harm but was just misinformed. Should I inform him that this is not a good example and to fix it in his next edition?

CCC 1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination."The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Catholic2003:

Perhaps the fact that women cannot be permanently installed as lectors or acolytes would be a better example of the “secondary status” of women in the Church, as these restrictions do not come from divine law.

Also, I think there was a “women cardinal” thread a few months back that might have some other information.

Actually these are derived from Divine Law, the same one that says only men can be priests.

At one time there were no lectors and acolytes. The clergy fulfilled these tasks. But then came a time when the laity started to assume these roles. The Church created the minor orders of lector and acolytes. As these jobs used to be done by men they continued that connection because they are acting in the place of the clergy who used to do these roles.

That is the best argument that I have heard against female altar servers put forward by a Byzantine Catholic priest in support of our tradition to not allow them which we still do not.

 

[Catholic2003]

ByzCath:

Actually these are derived from Divine Law, the same one that says only men can be priests.

At one time there were no lectors and acolytes. The clergy fulfilled these tasks. But then came a time when the laity started to assume these roles. The Church created the minor orders of lector and acolytes. As these jobs used to be done by men they continued that connection because they are acting in the place of the clergy who used to do these roles.

But this is a little-t tradition of men, not a big-t Tradition of God. And that women take second place behind this tradition of men is certainly an example of “secondary status”.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Catholic2003:

But this is a little-t tradition of men, not a big-t Tradition of God. And that women take second place behind this tradition of men is certainly an example of “secondary status”.

I disagree.

 

[batteddy]

Inasmuch as the roles of lector and acolyte are not divinely instituted, nor carry any sacramental power, but are functionary roles established by the Church…they are just traditions with a little t.

Just like the subdeacon or porter which the latin rite abolished. And seeing as it is a discipline, an office instituted by the Church, not a sacramental character imprinted and instituted by Jesus, the Church could decide whether or not to invest them in these roles or not. However, it chooses not to due to their historical connection with the clergy. But early in the Church the consecrated widows and virgins stood around the priest and deacons at the altar, so these roles have evolved.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

batteddy:

Inasmuch as the roles of lector and acolyte are not divinely instituted, nor carry any sacramental power, but are functionary roles established by the Church…they are just traditions with a little t.

Just like the subdeacon or porter which the latin rite abolished. And seeing as it is a discipline, an office instituted by the Church, not a sacramental character imprinted and instituted by Jesus, the Church could decide whether or not to invest them in these roles or not. However, it chooses not to due to their historical connection with the clergy. But early in the Church the consecrated widows and virgins stood around the priest and deacons at the altar, so these roles have evolved.

Actually, these were minor orders in the Church until the Latin Church removed them.

The Eastern Churches still have subdeacons and it is a minor order and ordaination into it makes the man a member of the clergy. It is a relatively new thing in the Church that these “offices” have been suppressed in the Western Church.

All men in the Eastern Churches who are to be ordained to the diaconate are first ordained to the subdiaconate.

These minor orders used to be part of the clergy in the West and they still are in the East.