The Stained Glass Ceiling

  • Thread starter Thread starter PoliSciProf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Makerteacher said:
It has been my understanding, as a convert, that the teaching against women’s ordination in the RCC comes not from the Church leadership but from Christ Himself, and the Church is merely following His guidance. He was radical in His time and could easily have chosen a woman to be an Apostle, but He did not.

To rely one one’s feelings as a motivation to do something so drastic as ordination seems to me to be the epitome of hubris. Consider that men seeking ordination submit themselves to the discernment of the Church. The word “submit” seems key here.

A short story: when I began investigating becoming a Catholic, I was a young woman in my late teens and had a very hard time accepting the birth control stance of the Church. But I assented, solely out of my obedience to The Church and the idea that maybe, just maybe, 2,000 years worth of theologians might know something that I, at age 20, did not.

Eventually, when I married, my spouse and I elected to use no birth control in obedience to the Magisterium. As our married life progressed, and I continued to live out the teaching even though I was uncertain of it, I began to understand it more clearly.

I do not believe that I would ever have been able to truly comprehend the reasons behind that teaching unless I experienced the grace that came from obeying it. Women seeking to be ordained are unable to accept that grace that comes from obedience.

They need our prayers and our love, and our continued gentle reminders that they are not the decision makers in this world. None of us are: only God is.
Click to expand...
You have mentioned the most important wordd in this entire issue, "obedience".

John Paul II said that the ordination of women was impossible because the Church is not autorized to do it. He’s clearly speaking of obedience to the what has been revealed or not revealed in Sacred Scripture.

In addition, sanctity is achieved through obedience, just as reemption was achieved through obedience.

When we set up our own rules, we run the risk of creating a parallel magisterium to that which already exists. “A houe divided cannot stand.” Jesus is not speaking about the Church, but the human soul. A soul divided between two magisteriums, its own and that which is rooted in the faith of the Apostles, can not stand. Eventually, it has to make a choice, obey one and disobey the other.

God protect us from ever deliberately putting ourselves in a position where our obedience is compromised.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
Philotheatoo said:
We have entered into a new covenant with God, through Jesus Christ whose crucifixion won us our salvation and whose teachings for us are love for every one of our brothers and peace in this world. We cannot approach Him if we are at odds with our brother. Let’s celebrate His birthday by showing our capacity for those teachings.
Click to expand...
And when people put themselves at odds with Christ’s Church - who is right, in your opinion? It seems to me what you are saying in your previous two posts is that this woman should be able to do as she pleases and the Church should allow such behavior (scriptural basis for such a claim???) and it also seems to me that you believe that the shortage of priests and religious in the Church today would be resolved by ordaining married people and women. I’d like to see your proof to support that belief, as well. Personally, I don’t think you’ll find it because the Protestant churches, many of whom ordain not only women, but marrieds and sometimes even practicing homosexuals have the same shortages. The shortages are not caused by the requirements placed on our priests but by the skewed secular values of the society in which we live.

I would add here that it does not seem to me to be in any way demeaning to women (or to men, either) to say that women have different roles than men, and to clarify what those roles are. The different roles do not make one inferior to the other, but instead make each a fulfillment of the other. Why must so many baby boomers be in such a constant state of rebellion?
 
One of the responsibilities of being a Catholic is obedience.Not a popular word or concept these days.My son will be confirmed FEb.17 of this year and even he at the age of 14 understands this concept and its necessity.This woman has decided to become her own pontiff and that she knows better than the two thousand year old teaching authority of the Church.By her actions she has excommunicated herself and no longer has any right to ANY sacrement.Like Eve she has commited the sin of Pride.Pray for her repentance and reconciliation to the Holy Catholic Church before it is too late.
 
PoliSciProf said:
I started this thread to elicit the sort of responses like the above. I also intended this post to illustrate how the media “frames” certain issues. In this case, the paper describes a reluctant revolutionary who fears reprisals from an outdated Church because of her couragous attempt to break through the glass ceiling to achieve gender equality. This framing is more important than the actual content of the story since it illustrates the institutional forces arrayed against Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Of course. The Church is facing powerful forces, and sadly, too many of its leaders are fearful of meeting those powers head on.
Martyrdom is unthinkable, and even confessiing becomes hard when many of us geneflect to the world every day.
 
It comes down to obedience to the magisterium as well. How can she expect obedience to her, when she is not being obedient to the Church in the first place? She doesnt really believe in the teaching authority of the church, its quite obvious. The Church has taught decisively and authoritative on the matter and its case closed. Shes rejecting the very authoirity that she expects to have as an ordained. Kinda oxymoronic isnt it?
 
I will never understand why these women want to trade the temporal for the spiritual.

Many many years ago, the practice of virtues such as chastity, humility, obedience and faithfulness were considered the essence of a good spiritual life. Something to be sought after through the grace of God and in conformity with God’s will for that individual.

In todays world, we are affected by all the “isms” - relativism, secularism, individualism…I am so saddened by this.
 
Soon, one of them will file a Federal lawsuit (probably in the 9th Circuit) to try to force the Catholic Church to “accept” them at priests. I expect one them will find a judge who will go along with them. At that point, we will have to decide whether we are Catholics or Americans. For me, the choice is already made. I am Catholic and the US will be the enemy.
 
In addition to all the arguments that have already been made, I confess to a fantasy:

Give these “ordained” women the full duties (minus administering sacraments, which they don’t legitimately have anyway) of the typically understaffed actual parishes for a few months. Let them run around like the descriptions in the NYT article of some US pastors – long commutes among clulstered parishes, 18-hour days, precious little time for private prayer or spiritual renewal – then see how enamored they are with the priesthood. They are enamored with (1) title, (2) pseudo-authority, (3) sacramental ceremonies and associated attire.

While “celebrating masses,” they are NOT running parishes. For some reason, I think this is the part that may offend me the most.

All religious life is a genuine call, first of all, to service. These women are just on perpetual retreat. Ask a typical parish (diocesan) priest (not one in religious community) when’s the last time he had the luxury to go on retreat.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Let them run around like the descriptions in the NYT article of some US pastors – long commutes among clulstered parishes, 18-hour days, precious little time for private prayer or spiritual renewal – then see how enamored they are with the priesthood. They are enamored with (1) title, (2) pseudo-authority, (3) sacramental ceremonies and associated attire. 👍
Click to expand...
Sadly, I believe you are right on!

And I’ve read articles that would refute the picture of the over-worked, stressed priests…the laity is now so active in roles that they never used to have, the priests are not typically as busy as one would think. Fr. Stravinkas mentions this in his teaching on Redemptionis Sacramentum.
 
Tigg said:
Sadly, I believe you are right on!

And I’ve read articles that would refute the picture of the over-worked, stressed priests…the laity is now so active in roles that they never used to have, the priests are not typically as busy as one would think. Fr. Stravinkas mentions this in his teaching on Redemptionis Sacramentum.
Click to expand...
Well, I was referring specifically to the NYT article, as well as some discussion about parishes of some CAF contributors. Further, when priests are busy sacramentally (multiple masses, multiple locations), combined with a thin diaconate and a paucity of lay involvement, priests have no choice but to “do it all.”

A hospital chaplain can even be female, but it’s the priest that brings Viaticum. Etc. Heavy lay involvement in my neck of the woods has not resulted in less responsibility for priests. On a certain level, ultimately, the priest must “pastor.”
 
PoliSciProf said:
The Baltimore Sun reports that a “devout Catholic” woman, a mother of 3 grown children, felt “absolutely peaceful and and very joyfull” at her “ordination.” She said “It isn’t about me, it’s about moving the Catholic Church forward.”
Click to expand...
This is not true. It is about her.

Dissent is always about the self.
 
Bob,
I respectfully disagree that dissent is always about the self. Sometimes thoughtful, responsible dissent is about large issues despite risk to one’s position, etc. Depends on the severity of the situation and the type of issue involved. Nevertheless, in this case I absolutely believe that their ‘movement’ is about Self. and these are the four reasons why I say that:

(1) Their arguments are generally framed in language that relies on subjective feelings over intellectual or theological reasoning – regardless of the length of the education (and some of them do have extensive theological educations). Note, however, that education is not synonymous with (seminary) formation.

(2) It’s especially offensive when they talk about ‘the Holy Spirit guiding them’: that’s the definition of private revelation. It’s elevating private revelation above the body of community or public revelation.

(3) Their implicit assumption is that by being denied priesthood they are somehow denied equal closeness to God, or denied an opportunity to participate equally in the spiritual journey. In turn, that implies that the Self is the controlling mechanism and the effective limiter of God’s grace. They either haven’t learned their theology well or their spirituality well. The priesthood is a role; it is not a spiritual status in itself. I’ve met particular lay people who appear to be holier, emotionally healthier, and happier than particular priests. (And vice-versa.) God’s grace is limitless and is no “respecter of persons.” It’s about Him, not about “You”! Even the priest in his sacramental administration is in persona Christi and for all purposes “invisible” in the activity.

(4) They speak in the language of power, as if (a) priests have a whole heck of a lot of “power” (politically, instituitionally), and (b) that’s the basis of vocation: “Power”. Vocation – any vocation, btw – is about receptivity to a call and about service, not power. Those of us who respond to internal calls to serve in secular capacities, such as in medicine, education, and public service – this is also the personal principle guiding us: selfless response to a higher urge to serve in the unique way God has called us to.

I actually feel really sorry for these women: they have missed, i.m.o., the central message of Christianity.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Sometimes thoughtful, responsible dissent is about large issues despite risk to one’s position, etc. Depends on the severity of the situation and the type of issue involved.
Click to expand...
Well, I’ve never seen “thoughtful responsible dissent” against Catholic Church faith and morals teachings - I’ve always seen dissent that had to do with people thinking about themselves first, especially if the dissent is about pelvic issues. Those dissenters tend to have the loudest voices and get a lot of attention.

I agree with your 4-point analysis on the issue. I would add a 5th point:
  1. If she truly had a vocation in the Church, why did she reject religious life? She could have been a nun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top