SPLIT: Women priests possible?

[diggerdomer]

The purpose of the Bible was not to detail Peter’s life either, was it? And yet in the Gospels we see and hear Peter doing and saying a lot of things and frequently on center stage. Jesus was with Peter for 3 1/2 years, He was with Mary for about 30 years and yet she is cloaked in almost total silence and rarely seen. She has three major dogmas focused on her: perpetually virgin, immaculate conception and assumption. How many dogmas focus on Peter? The point being that as important as Mary is to the Church, if she had been more seen and heard it would have been reflected in the Bible, just a Peter’s words and actions were. Therefore, I believe that it is fair to say that what the Bible says about Mary is truly reflective of how she lived her life, modestly, quietly, and unobtrusively and we as women should follow her example.

Do you know what Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) said was one reason there should not be woman priests in an interview he gave? It is because we have exploited women enough.

Dogmas focus on God, on Christ, first. Not on Mary or Peter. Yes there are Marian dogmas, but their focus is on Christ.

You’re reading more into the Bible, or what’s not in the Bible in this case, than is necessary. God inspired the authors to write as they did. If you want to interpret Mary’s life as you do that’s fine. I can see how you see it consistent with Scripture, but it’s hardly the message of Scripture or a necessary conclusion.

I’m afraid to even ask what relevance and why you brought up something supposedly said by the Pope about exploiting women. Yikes.

 

[HereticAmI]

And some wonder why women are leaving the RCC in droves. Phoebe was diakonos of the church of God at Cenchrae. For comparison purposes, at Romans 15.8, Christ is called diakonos. Phoebe is then called diakonos at Romans 16.1. So dismiss Phoebe and the rather clear implication all you like, but the word that you claim to be the inspired word of God has Paul in the same writing calling both your Lord and Phoebe, diakonos. So careful with your marginalization, lest some, me included, believe that you represent the continuation of what Paul meant to say, when he said to some in his time, when we are gone, grievous wolves will enter the fold and they will not spare the flock.

Lastly, Phoebe was also Paul’s prostatis, or champion, leader, chief, protector, patron. Remarkable woman she must be.

Sorry, I lied, and so for the misanthropic, deaconess would be diakonissa. But that’s not what Phoebe is called, as again, she is called diakonos. And you would do well to learn what this means…For not there is Jew nor Greek, for not there is slave nor freeman, and not is male and female… That’s supposed to mean, no discrimination among us based on ethnicity/race, legal status, and gender. And that about covers it all. Unless, of course, some try to pervert the word of God to suit their own lust for power and control. It’s anti-Christ, as we know that Christ rejected the roles of his day, and so the one sister came complaining that the other sister wasn’t supposed to be hanging with the men, and then your Lord told the complaining sister, that her sister is just fine here where she is.

 

[cassini]

Are there some on this thread mixing Catholicism up with the Muslim religion and ways of the Taliban? Now there is a conversion for women that deserves caution. Compare the two and sign up to Catholicism fast, soon that other be your only choice

youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

 

[diggerdomer]

There is no higher grace than to be called to follow our Lady’s example. If she was not a priest, no other woman could be.

Well some might argue there is a higher grace in following Christ’s example.

Mary not being a priest has nothing to do with the Church’s reason for banning women from priestly ordination. Mary’s example is used to affirm the dignity of discipleship (particularly for women) apart from Holy Orders. Mary wasn’t a deacon either, but as has been noted, the Church has not definitively ruled it has no authority to ordain women to the diaconate.

 

[FCEGM]

. . .Regarding Jesus not explicitly saying yay or nay on the issue, well, there you go. He seemed unnaturally predisposed to equality, and could just as well have said, if he had been so inclined, “You should never under any circimstances ordain women in my church.” But he didn’t. So anything else in man’s interpretation.
.

It is not simply a matter of what the Lord or His Apostles said, but a matter of Who the Lord IS: God incarnate as Man and as Man, Jesus is a specific male. And He is the Head of the Body, which is His Bride; and as Head He is the High Priest of the New and Eternal Covenant. His priests thus serve as symbols of Christ as the Bridegroom, and thus the priesthood is not a role to be taken on by a woman. So Christ’s choice of men only does not arise either from the social or religious order into which He was born as Man, but from the nature of the priesthood itself, i.e., the priesthood symbolizing the Head to the Body, the Groom to the Bride.

Further, as an inquirer into the Church, you should know that it is not just by the words of Sacred Scripture but also by the teaching of Sacred Tradition, that the Church presents what is to be believed and practice. So it is not simply your personal opinion vs. the Church’s opinion, but you against the Sacred Tradition of Christ’s Church. Catholics assent to the latter.

Those who have voiced non-acceptance with the particular teaching on ordination have also made a judgment that the Magisterium is in error as to doctrinal teaching. Now that is presumption of the Holy Spirit being with one who has no grace of state of life to judge about teachings and have no personal guarantee of having the Holy Spirit, yet who has anointed oneself (not an annointing of the Holy Spirit!) to be a teacher against Christ and His Church in their misguided understandings and actions. That is pride - and true blindness - judging the judges, and not just an intellectual difficulty in understanding a particular teaching (which would of itself not directly affect assent to truth).

So, a sincere inquirer is faced with the decision to believe that God has revealed to the Church what the Church believes: in this instance, that she has authority from God to ordain only men. Why not accept what the Church asserts, just as one accepts what the Church asserts about the conception and birth of Jesus and on the same basis? That is Catholic and Divine Faith in a Mystery of God’s will which is beyond human reason left to itself. Those who are deaf to this faith, and reject that a mystery of the supernatural order is at issue, and rely on their own reason proceeding from the principle of the equality of men and women spiritually as persons understood in a functional and quantitative way, an understanding that is absorbed from the secular culture and then applied without questioning to a Traditional understanding and practice. They are absolutely certain that they, not the Church, are right in this matter of Church belief. But that is simply pride, as well as a denial of the Divine authority of the Tradition and apostolic teaching of the Church. In short, they presume the infallibility of their own judgment and so must deny that to the Church, which is God’s creation and which has been given the Holy Spirit as a permanent presence and safeguard from error.

 

[diggerdomer]

As women we are called to emulate her.

Both women AND men are called to emulate Mary. Just so no one misreads what you wrote.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Both women AND men are called to emulate Mary. Just so no one misreads what you wrote.

You are right, of course, but women are called to follow Mary’s example in a special way. Men can follow Christ’s example in a way that women cannot by being priests. Women can follow Mary’s example in a way that men cannot by being the mother of priests.

 

[FCEGM]

And some wonder why women are leaving the RCC in droves. Phoebe was diakonos of the church of God at Cenchrae. For comparison purposes, at Romans 15.8, Christ is called diakonos. Phoebe is then called diakonos at Romans 16.1. So dismiss Phoebe and the rather clear implication all you like, but the word that you claim to be the inspired word of God has Paul in the same writing calling both your Lord and Phoebe, diakonos. So careful with your marginalization, lest some, me included, believe that you represent the continuation of what Paul meant to say, when he said to some in his time, when we are gone, grievous wolves will enter the fold and they will not spare the flock.

That is silly revisionism. For the same Paul who wrote Romans 16 also wrote 1 Tim 2:11-12 and 1 Cor. 14:33-35, where Paul clearly says that it is the rule in “ALL the churches of the holy ones” for women to keep silent to receive instruction from their husbands. This would include the city-church of Cenchrae, where Phoebe is called a “servant.” Here, a little geography helps as well: if you look on an ancient map of Greece, Cenchrae was a suburb of Corinth, and thus part of the same, greater metropolitan church that Paul is directly addressing in 1 Cor. 14:33-35. Thus, Phoebe could not possibly have been a “servant” in the sense of an ordained minister; rather, the term “diakonon” (“deacon”) had both a ministerial and a generic meaning for ancient Christians; Paul is using it in the latter sense in Romans 16. He is merely saying that Phoebe is a “servant” (that is, active member) of the local church in Cenchrae.

This could mean that she acted in the capacity of the female “deacons” mentioned in 1 Tim 3:11, (who, as the Didache tells us, were NOT ordained ministers, but merely assisted the presbyters and ordained male deacons when they Baptized women, etc.) or, more likely, Phoebe was some rich Greco-Roman woman who supported the church financially, as did St. Lydia (see Acts 16:14ff). St. Priscilla or Prisca (see Romans 16:3) and many other such women. This is evidence by the fact that Paul calls Phoebe his “benefactor” in Romans 16:2. IOW, she probably owned the house-church where the Christians in Cenchrae met; and the fact that she was traveling to Rome (so as to bear Paul’s epistle to the Roman church) shows that she (perhaps with a pagan husband) was some kind of business proprietors who traveled from city-to-city, as did Lydia (a dealer in purple cloth) and Priscilla and Aquila (who ran a tent-making business). All this is abundantly clear for anyone who reads Romans 16 honestly and without a modern, feminist agenda.

For not there is Jew nor Greek, for not there is slave nor freeman, and not is male and female… That’s supposed to mean, no discrimination among us based on ethnicity/race, legal status, and gender. And that about covers it all. Unless, of course, some try to pervert the word of God to suit their own lust for power and control

The passage from St. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians refers to baptism: that Baptism incorporates the individual person, male or female, into the paschal Mystery and into the Body of Christ. Galatians highlights the difference between the former Covenant with the Jews wherein the introductory and outward expression - circumcision - was available only for men; now in Christ the new circumcision, baptism, is available for all.

It does not mean that the distinction between male and female established within Creation is obliterated on the natural level (and therefore on the level of natural symbol), but that this distinction does not exclude any man or woman from salvation. The Sacrament of Holy Orders, however, is not established for everyone, but only for some, and is for the purpose of bringing to the Bride of Christ, the Church, a continuation of the definite God-Man Jesus’ sacrificial offering, forgiveness of sins, ruling the people, teaching them.

Therefore the quote which refers to Baptism can not be transferred to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and so there is no contradiction, for what is intended for all is by necessity different from what is intended for some.

The Church is teaching, otc, that the difference between being a man or a woman goes to the heart of the Divinely-revealed Mystery of the Incarnation of God as a Man, or to put it in reverse, that the basic Mystery of the Incarnation is necessarily connected in fact with Our Lord choosing only men to be Apostles (as opposed to the ethnic difference of Jew/non-Jew) since the Twelve are to be icons or living images of this Man Jesus in being His priests. That distinction is not important for Baptism or Confirmation, but it is for Holy Orders.

In Baptism the question is incorporation into the Body of Christ affecting mainly the soul; in Confirmation, the strengthening of that grace of the Holy Spirit But the specific difference in Holy Orders is to be a visible sign of the Groom to the Bride, the Head to His Body, the Son to the Father, the Father to His children; and the Author of the world to come. That involves not just the soul but the body before the visible communion.

To some symbols are not very real; but for God they are the chief means of causing grace through the Sacraments by His free choice. And if we relate one choice of His (12 men) back to an earlier choice of His (man and woman in Creation) we must suppose a non-contradiction, so that the Incarnation reveals something important about creation of Mankind (otherwise God is arbitrary and not wise). And while we have no evidence of absolute agreement or proof in terms of science or philosophy, we do see a fittingness between the two orders of Creation and Redemption, with Creation leading to Redemption.

 

[CentralFLJames]

And some wonder why women are leaving the RCC in droves.

Uh, huh. Have some numbers & link references to back that assertion up?

Where do you imagine they are going now?

James

 

[Cristiano]

Thanks, Marsha: I was referring to your comments. You are abolsutely right, that is exactly what the Bible says…

Yes, she is right if the reading is taken in the proper context. Just ignore the people that try to annoy you with this kind of answers. It looks like that even when you have strong opinions that are quite different from mine you are still trying to be open to some different ideas. Please hang in there.

…Regarding Jesus not explicitly saying yay or nay on the issue, well, there you go. He seemed unnaturally predisposed to equality, and could just as well have said, if he had been so inclined, “You should never under any circimstances ordain women in my church.” But he didn’t. So anything else in man’s interpretation…

This goes back to my comment on my previous post and it not a valid syllogism to prove that something is permissible. I think that it also wrong to discount things by saying that anything else is man’s interpretation. We believe in the Tradition of the Church as given to us by Jesus and such Tradition is not simply man’s interpretation.

…Regarding why I think your comments are reason enough that women should be ordained, it is entirely because of the sorts of conversations the mere question of female orindation inspires. They often seem, to me, to have an underlying lack of respect for my gender and a bizarre eagerness to uphold any tradition that silences us. However, I understand that many of you don’t, at least officially, see it that way. As far as invalid – wow, that’s a bad word for it, but you’re right, I did not understand the usage…

A series of comments from an individual to can be erroneous and not representative of the teachings of the Church. If I were you I would just consider only documents from the Vatican as the final say. Even Catholics go wild with their own interpretations of the documents to prove some point. I have seen some Catholics with the approach of “sola scriptura” toward some Church documents.

…Cristiano, that was not propaganda, those were my opinions, and you’re right: they are not officially credible, so you can take them or leave them. But that’s what I think…

Fair enough, they are your opinions and I see where they could come from but they are not consistent with the facts of the Church.

…And obviously it makes a lot of difference whether or not I am female, especially when I am considering joining a church. I am interested in exactly how this church is going to regard me if I am a member…

I can see your point, but with respect to femininity there is much more to the Church than the simple issue with the ordination of women. You should look into that to otherwise you opinion will be skewed by one factor only that is taken out of context. The Church does not treat everybody equally, even Jesus did not. However, the Church treats everybody with equal dignity as Jesus did.

…Because if the reason were inherently discriminatory, based on your supposed inferiority, or something equally demeaning, you might think twice before joining. I could not possibly know how you would actually feel, but you might feel that way, if it were you. At any rate, that’s how I feel. And the tone of this thread has made me feel as if the reason is inherently discriminatory for all the wrong reasons. I still suspect that it is. But there is always the possibility that I am overreacting to it, yes…

I have been discriminated by the Church for ordination because of things out of my control. Do I think that the Church was wrong? No! later I realized that it was God will and the He has better common sense than I do.
I know of men that have been discriminated from the priesthood because of lack of all the fingers. They were born that way and they accepted the decision of the Church.

I would agree with you that often the tone in these threads is irritating and in your face, especially on topics like this. However, you must be aware that I notice that most of the women that come here to discuss the topic in favor of ordination are not considering at the conversion to the Church and they are not honestly open to different ideas the way you try to be. Because of that people become defensive and confrontational. It is a ugly side of being human.

…As far as a “lower than I am rant”…No, you’re right, we’re all on the same page there. That was just a little heated righteous indignation on my part: I respectfully retract the self-righteousness, and I apologize for it, hope you will forgive the indignation, but stand by the question.

We all do that from time to time, and I am glad that you are so honest to call yourself on it.

 

[pickguard1]

Why not accept what the Church asserts, just as one accepts what the Church asserts about the conception and birth of Jesus and on the same basis?

Well said FCGEM!

As Catholics, we are to understand that the Holy Spirit that led the Apostles to write, without error, the books that were to become the New Testament, is the same Holy Spirit promised to them and their successors to guide the Church in all things regarding divinde revelation. How can Christ’s choosing of only men for his priesthood be separated from divine revelation? It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to do it! Ultimately, one ends up arguing about the way humans TODAY see things, and trying to retroactively apply the “perceived” current needs of social justice on a supernatural mystery.

The discrimination argument holds little water for me, i.e. that Jesus didn’t discriminate - he went against his times etc. ) simply because once one starts a gender argument like this, what prohibits one from ultimately declaring that in fact God the Father discriminated by only sending a Son and not a Daughter. I mean let’s face it, The Holy Trinity has existed from all eternity - if you can’t accept this, there is no foundation to believe anything else in Christianity. Period. So, from this premise, couldn’t The Trinity have been “God the Mother, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit” or alternatively, “God the Father, God the Daughter, and God the Holy Spirit”, or even “God the Brother, God the Sister, and God the Holy Spirit”? maybe - but It is God the FATHER, God the SON and God the Holy Spirit! We don’t get to decide how these things work! We can barely scrape at the thinnest understanding of them with our fallen human nature. So who are we to question how that same God the Son (who we profess our belief in) when He decides to do something a certain way?

This is why Christ gave us the Church. It is truly the most marvelous gift He could have given us after sacrificing Himself on the cross. Without it, the hearts and mind of men (and women) would most certainly have let their own corruption corrupt His memory and His teachings, leaving us all in darkness once again. But, since God is omnicient, omnibenevolent, all-mercyful, and truly just, he wouldn’t say “Follow me” and then just disappear, leaving us to scratch our heads and make things up. He gave us His Church. Thank you Jesus!

 

[spectrm]

You are right, of course, but women are called to follow Mary’s example in a special way. Men can follow Christ’s example in a way that women cannot by being priests. Women can follow Mary’s example in a way that men cannot by being the mother of priests.

And what of the unfortunate women who didn’t conceive a child without the sin of intercourse? And what of the even more unfortunate who, after committing said sin of the flesh, are incapable of conceiving because the ‘lord god on high’ made her infertile. Jesus called upon Mary of Magdala to lead his church. This clearly didn’t jive with the popular misogyny of the time (and apparently of your mind) and so was thrown out in ecumenical council.

Women can also, by the same logic, be condemned to hell by being the mother of the anti-christ…poor innocent woman. To give birth to one who does great works is no ‘great work’ as a result of the childs role in society.

Women should certainly be able to be priests, unless you feel that women are somehow spiritually inferior to men…

 

[edwest2]

This is an attempt to inject the Women’s Liberation Movement nonsense, which was and is, anti-family and anti-man. “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!”

It was an attempt to turn all men that any woman might meet into the enemy. It was an attempt to create fear, suspicion and mistrust in all women against all men.

Anyone who disagress with the Church can say so, but it will not change clear Church teaching, which is, the Catholic Church has no authority to ordain women. Period. End of story.

Peace,
Ed

 

[CentralFLJames]

Women should certainly be able to be priests, unless you feel that women are somehow spiritually inferior to men…

And males should certainly be able to be someone’s mother or at least act like they are? Eh?

Or, how about, anyone should be able to call themselves an atheist or a genius irrespective if they belive in God or are intelligent or not?

There is no such concept as absolute truth - we create our own reality and rules don’t we?

Please be so kind to keep your personal dogma at home.

James

 

[spectrm]

And males should certainly be able to be someone’s mother or at least act like they are? Eh?

Of course. I know many single dads who fill the role of eternal compassion. Certainly there are physical complications to a male birthing and suckling the young, but a male can certainly play the ‘feminine role’ in relationship dynamics.

Or, how about, anyone should be able to call themselves an atheist or a genius irrespective if they belive in God or are intelligent or not?

Mispurposed sarcasm won’t help your case any better than your strawmen. What does any of this have to do with a woman being a spiritual leader?

There is no such concept as absolute truth - we create our own reality and rules don’t we?

I disagree, but, again, I don’t see the relevance.

Please be so kind to keep your personal dogma at home.

If anyone’s being dogmatic, I do believe it’s you.

Only post to me again if you have something valid to say.

 

[HereticAmI]

That is silly revisionism. For the same Paul who wrote Romans 16 also wrote 1 Tim 2:11-12 and 1 Cor. 14:33-35, where Paul clearly says that it is the rule in “ALL the churches of the holy ones” for women to keep silent to receive instruction from their husbands. This would include the city-church of Cenchrae, where Phoebe is called a “servant.”"

Have you ever been in a mosque? Men and women are separated. What do you think happens when the men are being instructed and the women are just there together with nothing much to do but talk to each other? Maybe they talk so loud amongst themselves that the men can no longer hear their insturctor? If you’d ever been in a mosque you’d get this point. And that’s the point that Paul is making.

And how about Junia, emiment among the apostles. Did you forget her? The blatant sexism is so bad that some saw fit to alter the text. Lucky for us, we have the older copies.

And ever hear Epiphanius? He created an index of disciples. His views on women:

“the female sex is easily seduced, weak and without much understanding. The Devil seeks to vomit out this disorder through women…”

You can find that: Epiphanius, Adversus Collyridianos, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Volume 42, Column 740f.

And so he and the rest of the patent sexists put in the accent mark on Iounian to make the name male. He also thought that Prisca, or Priscilla, was a male.

To date, no one has found a textual example from any source other than the disputed source in question of a male being named “Junias”. In contrast, as Brooten relates:

“the female Latin name Junia occurs over 250 times among inscriptions from ancient Rome alone.”

And then consider, the golden voice, of St. John Chrysostom:

“Greet Andronicus and Junia…who are outstanding among the apostles: To be an apostle is something great! But to be outstanding among the apostles - just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.”

Your “saint” said that she is a woman and was an apostle. If she can be apostle, can’t she be deacon and/or priest as well?

Origen and Jerome also believed the person in question to be female. In short, before the 13th century, the universal opinion of the church was that the person in question was a woman. And she was an eminent apostle, and in Christ before Paul.

And for more from the golden voice:

“How is this? A woman again is honored and proclaimed victorious! Again are we men put to shame. Or rather, we are not put to shame only, but have even an honor conferred upon us. For an honor we have, in that there are such women among us, but we are put to shame, in that we men are left so far behind by them . . . For the women of those days were more spirited than lions. (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 51, cols. 668f.)”

Lastly, the only reasonable conclusion that can be reached:

“Andronicus and Junias were outstanding among the apostles probably by virtue of their apostolic sufferings, the numbers of years they had been in Christ, their labor, and their humble service for Christ. May the eyes of all those in the Church be opened to see this important truth and its significant implication in allowing women to minister equally as they are called by God. To do otherwise is to deny the full redemptive work of Christ.”

So call it “radical feminism” if you like, but kindly know that I’m not the one denying the full redemptive work of Christ.

 

[FCEGM]

Have you ever been in a mosque? Men and women are separated. What do you think happens when the men are being instructed and the women are just there together with nothing much to do but talk to each other? Maybe they talk so loud amongst themselves that the men can no longer hear their insturctor? If you’d ever been in a mosque you’d get this point. And that’s the point that Paul is making.

Here you exhibit a far more sexist attitude than Paul ever did.

And how about Junia, emiment among the apostles. Did you forget her? The blatant sexism is so bad that some saw fit to alter the text. Lucky for us, we have the older copies.

All this means is that Andronicus and (his wife?) Junia were important in the Jerusalem city-church, just as Prisca (or Priscilla) and Aquila (another husband-and-wife team) were “prominent” within the Roman (see: Romans 16:3) and Ephesian (see: 2 Tim 4:19) city-churches. And this fact is hammered home by Paul’s comment “they were in Christ before me.” …meaning that they were members of the earliest Jerusalem city-church, and not that they were Apostles chosen by Christ during His earthly life.

Note that “Junia” is not called a “fellow apostle”. What we know from the text (Romans 16:7) is that this “Junia” is paired with “Andronicus,” who is listed before “her”. We are also told that Andronicus and “Junia” are St. Paul’s “relatives” and that they were Christians “before” St. Paul was. The natural conclusion here is that “Junia” (if it is “Junia”) was Andronicus’ wife, and they were “prominent among (or before) the apostles” in one of two senses: 1) Either they were regarded as a “husband and wife team” (with Andronicus being the primary figure as an evangelist -
i.e., women were not permitted to preach publicly or have authority over a man). In this, they would have been no different than Aquila and his aristocratic Roman wife Priscilla, who are likewise always paired together, and mentioned in this same Epistle to the Romans only a few verses earlier (Romans 16:3), where they together are called Paul’s “co-workers”; and this by a Paul who does not permit women to preach; or, 2), “prominent among (or before) the Apostles” can mean that Andronicus and “Junia” were held in high esteem among the Twelve, just as Priscilla and Aquila were “prominent” among the disciples of Paul. This would make sense if they were “in Christ before [Paul],” since that would mean that they were early members of the Jerusalem church, and probably the Apostles’ first emissaries to the Jews of Rome, if not among the very Roman Jews who were converted on the day of Pentecost (see Acts 2:9-10, where Roman Jewish pilgrims are mentioned). Paul, of course, was a Roman citizen, and so it would make sense for his relative Andronicus and his wife Junia (if it is a woman) to be Roman citizens as well, and so residents of Rome. So, there is no “feminist super-hero” to be found in this verse, but rather a phantasm.

So call it “radical feminism” if you like, but kindly know that I’m not the one denying the full redemptive work of Christ.

What you fail to recognize is that Christ’s redemptive work as Bridegroom cannot be overthrown by those who’ve succumbed to secularist ideology. Your approach in essence undermines the very historicity of Jesus Who was a man and not a woman; but it also (within the realm of Catholic Christology) implies that the risen and eternal Christ either a) no longer possesses the male human nature He did on earth or b) The human nature that He possesses now is no longer an exclusively male human nature, but is an ultra-sexual human nature that is distinct and different from the male human nature that redeemed us on the Cross. Very scary area, that.

 

[diggerdomer]

You are right, of course, but women are called to follow Mary’s example in a special way. Men can follow Christ’s example in a way that women cannot by being priests. Women can follow Mary’s example in a way that men cannot by being the mother of priests.

This concerns me…please tell me you’re not saying that women who bear children are therefore more capable of following Mary’s example, as a saint, than those who for whatever reason have or do not bear children?

And, of course, please tell me you’re not saying that the ideal woman, following Mary’s example, should expect to conceive without having sexual relations and give birth virginally?

 

[Just_Lurking]

This concerns me…please tell me you’re not saying that women who bear children are therefore more capable of following Mary’s example, as a saint, than those who for whatever reason have or do not bear children?

A woman’s most important contribution to the Catholic Church is via her uterus. Anything else is of secondary concern.

 

[spectrm]

Some of the most baseless, ignorant, and sexist comments I’ve ever read.

I’m really saddened to see so many women bowing to this sort of misogyny. I feel for you the same way I feel for the women in conservative muslim countries, only less so as you had a choice and chose to forfeit your fate to the males in your life.

Be barefoot and pregnant. Be proud of your ignorance. Why not? This is america, after all.