To Christians with female clergy

[Kay_Cee]

I know you say you don’t mean to downplay fatherhood, but it seems to me that that’s exactly what you are doing. That’s why I find this comparison really wide of the mark.

Eve Tushnet did help me see more value in it by meditating on the implications of a “motherly” view of the priesthood. And while you don’t go as far as she does, you are gesturing in that direction. I also really like the point about the Blessed Virgin bringing God to the people and thus in a sense combining the two roles (I get that you’re not saying that she was sacramentally ordained as a priest, of course!) So perhaps I need to rethink my knee-jerk reaction to this.

I was talking about biology only.

 

[Kay_Cee]

not all women are mothers (infertility, those who are not called to be moms), I don’t think the whole comparison of “women can give birth, guys can’t” whenever priesthood is mentioned is appropriate. (don’t bring up spritual motherhood, that’s never the same, and guys can technically nurture and care for others, they aren’t stopped from that, while girls are stopped from becoming priests solely because of their gender.)

And men are stopped from being mothers solely because of their gender.

I personally don’t care much about female priests, it has never been an issue for me, but I do get slightly annoyed when some people try to sugarcoat things and act like there is an equivalent, so I apologise if I sound rude

the complementary role to motherhood, is fatherhood (as in fathers, not priests).

Sure, not all women are mothers, but far fewer men are Fathers (as in being priests). As for complementarity, my point is that women bring people to God (by giving birth) and Fathers bring God to the people (by consecrating the Eucharist). We can all see the holiness in the latter, but how many consider the holiness in the former?

And I’m not trying to sugarcoat things. I’m trying to point out a complementarity some folk may not have considered before. What do you think Dr. Peter Kreeft meant when he said that altars and wombs are the two holiest places in the world?

 

[AKDee]

To be frank, there is a sexism problem in the church - we’ve done a lousy job in finding strong roles for women to become awesome parts of the Body of Christ.

I don’t know that this is true any longer. Women have pretty much become the dominant gender in every role in most parishes that is open to women. Every sacristan in my parish is a woman. Most of the lectors are women. Most of the choir members are women. The prayer shawl ministry is all women, I believe. We have over 50 ministries in our parish, and I can think of just a handful that remain dominated by men- the ushers, the groundskeepers/building maintenance, KoC (of course), a men’s Bible study, and then of course the ordained deacons and priests.

A recent visiting priest to our parish told me that in his own parish, if women could be ordained, they wouldn’t even need men because women do every other role in that parish. Essentially the only thing that the priests still do is celebrate Mass and hear confessions. Other than that, even the pastoral role is handled by a woman.

 

[Thorolfr]

Dear brethren in Christ,

Arguments about the ordination of women are often inconclusive, biblically-speaking, but the deeper theology of womens’ ordination is actually much more Christological/Edenic in focus than I had imagined. Some theologians seem convinced about it. But I wonder one thing:

If the equality of men and women in Christ is so crucial, even in Church ministry, why did every Christian generation until the 20th century forbid women as clergy? **Was it purely because of sexism/cultural obstacles? **Or was it just our predecessors not realizing the fullness of the Gospel until now?

But doesn’t that make all our ancient predecessors (including the Apostles themselves!) pretty unjust and in rebellion against the very Gospel itself? I just don’t understand how such a profound equality of man & woman in Christ could’ve been completely missed by Church for 1900 years…

This question is asked in all love, with respect…

We might also ask why the United States has never had a woman president? Was it just because of sexism/cultural obstacles? Or because our American ancestors realized that men make better presidents?

Just because our ancestors have done something for centuries does not make it better.

 

[goout]

Guess that’s where we’ll have to disagree. I don’t see motherhood and fatherhood as unique vocations. Rather they’re two co-equal parts of the same single vocation, parenthood.

?
Yes, mothers and fathers are both parents.
But, a mother is not a father. A father is not a mother. You seem to be using the word equal in the sense that each is interchangeable. I am saying that each is unique. Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable as parents.

The priesthood by comparison is a single vocation that is not biologically required to be unique as you put it to males.

Why does a person’s body have significance in other vocations, but not in the priesthood?

In fact, you are begging the question, why God chose to come into the world specifically
born of a woman
as a man.

He could have descended fully grown without being carried by a mother, and as a spirit with not physical body.

Why did God choose to become fully human, including a human body?

 

[Contarini]

Whoa. What?
How do you assume I am accusing anyone of anything?

Sorry. I am probably over-sensitive about this because I see this claim all the time.

How about here:
Do you agree that Christ is the second person of the Trinity incarnate, and that he is male in his human nature? If you concur that Christ is observably male, how could that “work for women’s ordination” as you say?

The maleness doesn’t work for women’s ordination. The theology of the Incarnation that says that both men and women are saved by sharing in the nature Christ assumed for our salvation–that’s the strongest argument for women’s ordination.

The priesthood is the vocation to serve in Christ’s ministerial role. The priest is “in persona Christi”.

Right. And the Catholic position requires this to mean something radically different in the case of ordination than in the case of baptism. I can accept this on the basis of the authority of the Church, but I’m not going to pretend it makes a whole lot of theological sense to me.

The way this is typically gotten around is to claim that the Incarnation is essentially not very meaningful.

Quite the reverse, at least for me. It’s that the Incarnation is so meaningful, for women as well as for men.

How is anyone saved, except by sharing in Christ’s nature?

Now maybe I’m wrong, but if so, I’m wrong because I make the Incarnation too meaningful.

We hear this all the time:
“Well yea Christ is a man in the Gospels but he could have just as easily been a woman. The fact that scripture says he is a man is a product of the cultural bias against women”.

The implications of relativizing the Incarnation are disastrous and are probably best for another thread.

It’s not relativizing the Incarnation, but relativizing Christ’s maleness.

Christ had many particular properties as a human being, but no one suggests that priests have to share all those properties–not even Jesus’ Jewishness, which is of course extremely important in terms of salvation history. That’s not “relativizing the Incarnation.”

So why is Christ’s maleness different from His Jewishness or any other particular aspect of His incarnate humanity? Isn’t there something problematic about saying that Christ’s maleness is more salvifically significant than His Jewishness?

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

So why is Christ’s maleness different from His Jewishness or any other particular aspect of His incarnate humanity? Isn’t there something problematic about saying that Christ’s maleness is more salvifically significant than His Jewishness?

Edwin

Priests no longer need to be kohanim because Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law, and gentiles have been grafted onto the vine.

 

[Thorolfr]

Priests no longer need to be kohanim because Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law, and gentiles have been grafted onto the vine.

Of course Contarini did say, “or any other particular aspect of His incarnate humanity”. We could possibly make a long list of other characteristics besides his Jewishness and his maleness.

 

[Lea101]

And men are stopped from being mothers solely because of their gender.

Sure, not all women are mothers, but far fewer men are Fathers (as in being priests). As for complementarity, my point is that women bring people to God (by giving birth) and Fathers bring God to the people (by consecrating the Eucharist). We can all see the holiness in the latter, but how many consider the holiness in the former?

And I’m not trying to sugarcoat things. I’m trying to point out a complementarity some folk may not have considered before. What do you think Dr. Peter Kreeft meant when he said that altars and wombs are the two holiest places in the world?

In her defense, you said that god already gave a gift to women, when technically, not all women have this gift. So i can imagine that will sting some people already.

Because if we were to look at this-reproduction is a physical thing. Men literally cannot be pregnant, women are not allowed to be priests, a penis does not make a better priest, priests have to be men simply because ‘God says so’. (For example the woman’s reproductive parts play an active role in making her a mom, a priest’s parts technically have no purpose in the priesthood, I mean it’s just a requirement, kind of like how a requirement to be a cashier at a supermarket would be like idk…to have a high school education. Those who drop out of high school will probably be good cashiers, but they are just not allowed to, and that’s just the way it is)

Plus men do bring life too (ahem-sperm)

This argument technically isn’t enough for non catholics, but at the end of the day, it’s literally the only argument we have. If they say it’s sexist, then okay. The church is sexist.

Comparing a ‘physical role’ to a spiritual one does not really convince a lot of people, especially those who aren’t religious. It just seems like a lazy way of explaining it. Might as well just say “god says so. Women can do lots of other stuff, even though other men can do the same thing too. Think it’s unreasonable? Go ahead”

Because @ the end of the day, no matter how much we try to act like we are equal, the church is patriarchal. The things women can do in the church, men can do. Some of the things men can do in the church, women can’t do. We are just not equal. Sure, God loves both, and we should not discriminate, etc etc. But that’s just the way it is. That’s just a fact imo. Some will find it sexist, some will not (a lot of women in the church frankly do not wish to be priests, contrary to what non catholics think) but that’s literally the truth. Idk why women have to submit, but “god says so” It’s a harsh truth

 

[Rosebud77]

not all women are mothers (infertility, those who are not called to be moms), I don’t think the whole comparison of “women can give birth, guys can’t” whenever priesthood is mentioned is appropriate. (don’t bring up spritual motherhood, that’s never the same, and guys can technically nurture and care for others, they aren’t stopped from that, while girls are stopped from becoming priests solely because of their gender.)

I personally don’t care much about female priests, it has never been an issue for me, but I do get slightly annoyed when some people try to sugarcoat things and act like there is an equivalent, so I apologise if I sound rude

the complementary role to motherhood, is fatherhood (as in fathers, not priests).

Depends what you mean by “motherhood” … “He will make the barren woman to keep house and to be a joyful mother of children.”

There is far, fare more to motherhood than giving birth is there not?

 

[Rosebud77]

Thank you for stating this. Motherhood is so often equated with the priesthood as an “complimentary” or “equal” gift that women are afforded but men are not as a partial explanation as to why men alone are able to be priests when women are not. But that ignores the actual equal to motherhood which is fatherhood. And frankly as a father I find the apparent diminishment of what fatherhood is by that position a tad insulting. Fatherhood is an equally important role for a father, and for their child, as motherhood is for a mother and child. And just as a man can’t be a mother, a woman can’t be a father. The two roles are both mutually exclusive to the sexes and yet co-equal to the other role.

Priesthood is not a corresponding equal replacement for men compared to motherhood.

You miss the point. Fathers do not carry a baby inside them for nine months.

 

[Rosebud77]

Guess that’s where we’ll have to disagree.** I don’t see motherhood and fatherhood as unique vocations. Rather they’re two co-equal parts of the same single vocation, parenthood. **

The priesthood by comparison is a single vocation that is not biologically required to be unique as you put it to males.

How can they be? carrying a baby inside you for nine months cancels out any idea of co-equal, as does the act of giving birth

 

[Rosebud77]

I don’t know that this is true any longer. Women have pretty much become the dominant gender in every role in most parishes that is open to women. Every sacristan in my parish is a woman. Most of the lectors are women. Most of the choir members are women. The prayer shawl ministry is all women, I believe. We have over 50 ministries in our parish, and I can think of just a handful that remain dominated by men- the ushers, the groundskeepers/building maintenance, KoC (of course), a men’s Bible study, and then of course the ordained deacons and priests.

A recent visiting priest to our parish told me that in his own parish, if women could be ordained, they wouldn’t even need men because women do every other role in that parish. Essentially the only thing that the priests still do is celebrate Mass and hear confessions. Other than that, even the pastoral role is handled by a woman.

Thank you…

 

[Lea101]

Depends what you mean by “motherhood” … “He will make the barren woman to keep house and to be a joyful mother of children.”

There is far, fare more to motherhood than giving birth is there not?

Well…the person was talking about mothers and wombs.

the whole ‘spiritual motherhood’ catholics like to say to people-a guy can also easily fill the role. Think of men who take care and nurture others. It’s not a women’s only thing, technically

Edit:turns out my post wasn’t posted yeesh

 

[carefullytread]

Of course Contarini did say, “or any other particular aspect of His incarnate humanity”. We could possibly make a long list of other characteristics besides his Jewishness and his maleness.

I was recently listening to some talks on the psychology of attention and God. It made reminded me of this discussion and this particular objection. Here’s just an idea of think about.

The Christian conception of God is of one who is omniscient. If you ask a religious person if God knows whether they were thinking about something sexual, the answer comes to them immediately. Yes, He knows. But if ask the same person does God know what their dog had for breakfast, the answer comes much more slowly. They have to puzzle out that God would be aware of this, since He is aware of everything.

We much more naturally associate God’s attention with ‘moral’ things, the sort of things we think He cares about. One interpretation of this (the one being advanced by the psychologists of course) is that God is a creation of our psychologies. We naturally care about certain pro and anti social activities and we create a god who cares about those same things.

But another more interesting one might be that we are created in God’s image and so our psychologies are reflections of His. The things that leap out at us are related to the things that leap out at Him. And when you look at a person and you want to classify them, sex is pretty much the first thing that draws your attention. So maybe it is also the first category that God sees as well. That would give it priority in the list of aspects of the Incarnation that matter.

 

[1lucy1]

Depends what you mean by “motherhood” … “He will make the barren woman to keep house and to be a joyful mother of children.”

There is far, fare more to motherhood than giving birth is there not?

Doesn’t that verse mean that the Lord will give the barren woman children? (the verse showing how great he is)

Previous verses:

He raises the poor from the dust
and lifts the needy from the ash heap;
8 he seats them with princes,
with the princes of his people.
9 He settles the childless woman in her home
as a happy mother of children.
Praise the Lord.



Anyway, like what I have said. Women who have no children can definitely be nurturing LIKE a mom, but so can men. Men are not forbidden to do that, it’s physically possible for them to act ‘motherly’ (nurturing lives) whereas women are just simply not allowed to be priests.

 

[Rosebud77]

Well…the person was talking about mothers and wombs.

the whole ‘spiritual motherhood’ catholics like to say to people-a guy can also easily fill the role. Think of men who take care and nurture others. It’s not a women’s only thing, technically

Edit:turns out my post wasn’t posted yeesh

Not talking about that. That is something different and in any case male nurturing is very different from female . Mothering IS a totally feminine thing.

Wondering how many women clergy have kids? Never thought of that…

 

[Rosebud77]

Doesn’t that verse mean that the Lord will give the barren woman children? (the verse showing how great he is)

Previous verses:

He raises the poor from the dust
and lifts the needy from the ash heap;
8 he seats them with princes,
with the princes of his people.
9 He settles the childless woman in her home
as a happy mother of children.
Praise the Lord.


**
Anyway, like what I have said. Women who have no children can definitely be nurturing LIKE a mom, but so can men. Men are not forbidden to do that, it’s physically possible for them to act ‘motherly’ (nurturing lives) whereas women are just simply not allowed to be **priests.

You ,like lea, do not “get” it… Far more than physical nurturing.

 

[1lucy1]

You ,like lea, do not “get” it… Far more than physical nurturing.

okay…so explain yourself then explain your opinion on motherhood and how no man in this world will ever be able to do that!

would also like to bring up the fact that there are plenty of women who are not nurturing at all, and there are men who are very nurturing and that’s fine (in case there are people bothered about this) although that’s not the main point of the thread

 

[Kay_Cee]

The things women can do in the church, men can do.

I’m afraid I have to disagree. The church isn’t just Mass or the sacraments. It’s not just praying. It’s how we live our lives every day, and gestating a child is how we women cooperate with God’s incredible gift of procreaton. It’s an amazingly holy thing to do. And it is a simple fact that men cannot do that. Yes, they can sire a child (which is also holy), but their biological role is limited to a one-time act. We women, during pregnancy, continue day after day to cooperate with God’s act of creation. Hence, our role is more extensive than a man’s.

Some of the things men can do in the church, women can’t do. We are just not equal. Sure, God loves both, and we should not discriminate, etc etc. But that’s just the way it is. That’s just a fact imo. Some will find it sexist, some will not (a lot of women in the church frankly do not wish to be priests, contrary to what non catholics think) but that’s literally the truth. Idk why women have to submit, but “god says so” It’s a harsh truth

I don’t find it harsh at all. Having different roles doesn’t make us unequal. What makes us unequal is the differing degrees with which we cooperate with God’s grace. Power comes from God. The more a person (whether male or female) cooperates with God’s grace, the more powerful that person is. I would venture to say that Mother Teresa was a lot more powerful than most men in the church.