What does God make of feminism?

[SoCalRC]

The information shared about the writings of Paul has given me a different perspective.

An excellent theologian once told me that the trick is to constantly test yourself, am I striving to learn and follow or simply rationalize what I already believe?

We humans are fantastic at rationalization. It is part of our nature. But when we rationalize, we tend to pick and choose. Consider part of the debate here. St. Paul is being quoted as evidence of what a man’s role should be in a household. Intellectually, we could discuss this on many levels. For example, in the book FAMILY: A Christian Social Perspective, Cahill points out that family structures and even “family values” were dramatically different in old and new Testament periods from what we think of as “traditional” today.

But a more fundemental question is, do we really believe in assigning so much authority to every utterance by St. Paul? In other words, are we following St. Paul because it matches what we want, or we feel compelled to do so because of his apostolic authority? In this case, I find the latter suspect. After all, St. Paul was seemingly not all that hot on marriage. He seemed to believe that it was a lesser alternative to celebacy, a superior form of Christian existance. Now, to be fair, some non-Catholic Christian groups do, in fact, take this quite literally - that is, everyone in the Church is, in fact, celibate. Presumably this explains why they are small groups!

But we Catholics have a different view. We know that St. Paul thought that the second coming was imminent. With that mind set, having everyone take steps akin to the ordinary is not illogical. But, we also know that, in this St. Paul was wrong. God works in His own timeframe. So, we take such comments in context and the understanding provided to us by the Magesterium. Now, if a person is willing to do that with some comments, and not others. And the ‘others’ seem to align with that person’s belief system, is it likely that the person is striving to expand understanding, or rationalize a belief already held?

I don’t want to go too far off topic, but just want to clear up a little thing that happened to me that’s puzzling.

FWIW, I have actually been to many Catholic Churchs all over the country. I used to travel a great deal and take the Sunday obligation thing quite seriously. I, literally, cannot think of an instance where I did not meet nice people the first time I visited a parish.

And, further, I cannot ever recall meeting someone who was deliberately abusive or intentionally unpleasant.

Let’s just say, visiting a Catholic Forum is not like visiting a Catholic Church!

I’m sorry you had an unpleasant encounter. I would encourage you not to worry too much about it.

Peace

 

[jennifer67]

Thank you for the feedback about the “reviving” comment - one opens oneself up to thing though I suppose when they go around posting anonymously on these boards…probably was no need to take up space addressing it but I had a weird feeling said “frustrated” person might have some lingering feeling of something and direct additional emails to me later…

Well, not having as I have said been exposed to any degree to much that is being written I am reluctant to join in on some of the discussion…so primarily listening

Having had 16 years of Catholic education including college obviously, I still feel pretty uneducated in some sense about my faith. The forums here are a good resource for me…

Not to open a can of worms, but people could have different views on the role and relative important of sophtiscated intellectual approaches to faith…

As for me I try to have “simple trust in God” as Mother Teresa has urged and it has been important for me to simplify my faith over the years

Part of this a reaction to growing up with very prosperous Catholics and unfortunately witnessing as a child an approach to our faith that was oriented towards creating an elite subculture and using the advantages of a Catholic education primarily to launch children into lucrative careers

Also, my primary spiritual experience occurred while working in the desert with impoverished people, my reading the Gospel with new eyes

Since then have not had much time for discussions like these but do see the value of having greater knowledge about things to avoid the quick and easily conclusions I might come to if I just picked up the letters of St. Paul and read them without further thought and exploration

I don’t remember any service activity or discussions about social justice issues at my college…but I think times may be changing and there is now some limited activity like that available at the campus…but the university I attended was heavily invested in their own mission which I won’t try to define here…

It would take a lot of space to adequately spell out my various thoughts on various angles of this, so I won’t…

but as for myself, my early training including some exposure to theological discussions and study of doctrine, etc…and such probably formed my faith in more ways than I realize…particularly on the value and use of reason in exploring my faith…

However, I felt strongly pulled toward pushing myself to participate in the world in a more practical way and thus pursued studies in economics and law, not academia

So I don’t find myself engaging in a lot of discussion on a daily basis like the ones I am reading here…it is good to have access to such though

My contributions on this topic are more in the nature of practical observations which I see have their limit yet probably do have their own value, bringing in the reality of how these issues are played out in people’s lives

I did have one of these domineering type fathers who used his strength and more aggressive personality to hijack the family to serve his own purposes as was discussed earlier, although he was not thoughtful enough to try to excuse/base it on any theological foundation…I am sure it never occurred to him to love my mother as his own body and such…

He was unconsciously following a pattern established in his generation apparently amongst his community

I often thought my mother’s steering me away from an unhealthy emphasis on seeking marriage as my “natural” vocation and toward a career although primarily about preparing me to be able to support myself and any children, but also out of a hope that I could avoid being locked in the misery of living with a domineering male which she and others of her generation had less ability to do…

I can honestly say I have never gotten over the great feeling of relief I had when I escaped to college at 17 and realized I could have a life of my own…and enjoy self-determination…

Well, I should say that of course I am aware that there were many happy marriages in prior generations, many kind and loving men, and also traditional men who do not domineer/control to get their own wants satisfied

But an imbalance of power creates an invitation to abuse that power. I for one know I am glad I don’t have to hand over total control of my life to someone else in exchange for having children…but don’t tell any of this to those nice single Catholic males what I have been writing on here, who call now and then…small joke…is that permitted or will there be the threat of official action…nice Catholic lady is still my m.o.

Anyway, realize I have jumped around a bit on different themes and don’t know what all this contributes to our topic and the meaning of the letters of St. Paul, but these are my thoughts if anyone is interested

 

[Salonika]

… my mother was a full time nursing supervisor throughout her married life.

She taught me in no uncertain terms that I must get an education and be able to go out and support myself - both to take care of myself and any children in the event of being widowed or abandoned etc…

I do believe a woman has an obligation to train herself if possible to assist in the support of the family or to be the sole support if needed.

Wise woman. This was also my mother’s view partly from seeing what happened to widows or women who were abandoned. But also from the damage that could be done to the woman herself, her husband and children when a woman married or remarried out of economic necessity.

My maternal grandmother and great-grandmother also subscribed to the same point of view. They believed relationships between men and women needed to be equal and women should not have options closed to them just because they were women. Yes, they were real feminists.

but it is sad that college educated women had to shut down their minds and play pretty and dumb sometimes to get the approval of our male peers/community.

Used to get flack for not doing this and also warnings about how “no man would want me” if I continued this behaviour. I did continue with the behaviour, both because I considered what I was being asked to do was dishonest and because guys were not asked to do the same thing.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

rtforum.org/lt/lt53.html

 

[SoCalRC]

rtforum.org/lt/lt53.html

This appears to be another one of those strange circular thinking things I hear from Church dissenters all the time. Consider this quote:

Mrs. Steichen does not leave her readers simply waiting for Catholic authorities eventually to begin honoring patriarchy again. She dedicates the last few pages of her book to describing the many things that are already being done towards the restoration of the Church in North America.

Now, look at the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church:

“For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” - Lumen Gentium

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

There is already a name for the lay faithful attempting to take control and direction of the Church away from the Magesterium - it is called Protestantism.

We profess the Nicene Creed together each Sunday and the Catechism explains it, literally line by line. If a person does not accept the words, then he or she should think twice about asserting moral authority on Catholicism in excess of the Magesterium on matters of faith and morals.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hello,

I have been following the thread here and there and have found it interesting. I haven’t been exposed to some of the things you are discussing, so I won’t comment further…

The information shared about the writings of Paul has given me a different perspective.

I don’t want to go too far off topic, but just want to clear up a little thing that happened to me that’s puzzling.

I am new to this and I apparently unknowingly had “revived” a 2 year old thread on another forum, not knowing perhaps I was supposed to find a date on the last post and then not “revive.”? People made some serious sounding comments about that and mentioned a possible need for official action…anyway, got the idea I am somehow supposed to avoid “reviving” threads…and the threat of “official action.”

Must have gotten confused and made a passing remark about “reviving” this thread or mistakenly thought it was also an old thread. Sometimes one cannot see the whole prior thread or at least I had not been able to when I first posted…

Anyway, someone emailed me privately, saying they didn’t want to be “rude” but I frustrated them with the “reviving” remark and correcting me, letting me know this thread was new in July.

I tried to email back explaining my mistake but the person had either blocked me or does not accept emails.

Anyway, sorry if I mistakenly thought in passing I had “revived” this thread if referencing “reviving” has any significance at all to anyone…

I thought it quite strange anyone would become “frustrated” by such a trivial passing remark and enough so to email me about it???..but have not been in the anonymous posting business very long…

just commenting on this to clear up any confusion, but thinking surely noone else bothered to notice my mistaken “reviving” comment…

Sorry to diverge from the discussion. Peace.

Well, just had to get that

Don’t take it to heart. There are many here who are fine and very friendly people. A few are well, shall we say a bit obsessive in their behavior. I can understand your confusion. My first post here was met with some vicious replies, not at all what one would expect from a Christian site, certainly not what I have come to see in Catholics. My experience in several parishes over the years is certainly not like anything I have experienced here. Some of us do private message a lot to help each other. Please feel free to do so if you have questions or are troubled. You’ll know who you feel comfortable listening to.

 

[onmyknees]

We go to mass because IMO, the trinity reflects the imporance of Community, and Mass is a community of believers who come together to support each other in faith. We obey moral precepts because we all agree that they are the subject of a loving God.

Your queries have little to do with my statement. If I obey and worship what harm am I doing to you or God that I do so freely and willingly without believing that it is demanded of me by God. this has nothing to do as far as I can see with the usefulness of church per se. The “Catholic thing” doesn not provide us with eternal life, unless you are prepared to say that all protestants are condemned.

We go to mass not only for the reasons you stated but first we go to reenter into the the holy sacrifice of Jesus on calvary and bring our offerings(sufferings) as a gift to Him who loves us so much. The prayers at the mass are the most powerful prayers that you can pray. Yes, God is a loving and merciful God but He is also a just God and we are obedient to Him because we love Him in return. But there is nothing wrong with being obedient because of the fear of the possibility of not getting to spend eternity with Him.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

There is already a name for the lay faithful attempting to take control and direction of the Church away from the Magesterium - it is called Protestantism.

yep - and it still continues today. I spent time on the protestant side of the church and have seen female “ministers” in all their radical feminist glory.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

We go to mass not only for the reasons you stated but first we go to reenter into the the holy sacrifice of Jesus on calvary and bring our offerings(sufferings) as a gift to Him who loves us so much. The prayers at the mass are the most powerful prayers that you can pray. Yes, God is a loving and merciful God but He is also a just God and we are obedient to Him because we love Him in return. But there is nothing wrong with being obedient because of the fear of the possibility of not getting to spend eternity with Him.

I didn’t state that my reasons were the ONLY reasons. I was trying to answer your question in some basic context to the ongoing conversation.

I never said there was a thing wrong in being obedient out of fear of hell.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

yep - and it still continues today. I spent time on the protestant side of the church and have seen female “ministers” in all their radical feminist glory.

Are all protestant women ministers radical feminists? I hadn’t heard that. A study perhaps you could share with us? Poll?

 

[Eric_Olsen]

personal experience.
And just look at the Episcopalians.
Letting women be ordained did “wonders” for that church.

Are all protestant women ministers radical feminists? I hadn’t heard that. A study perhaps you could share with us? Poll?

 

[marietta]

Eric_Olsen:

Spirit Meadow asked you a legitimate question regarding your view that all protestant women ministers are radical feminists, and you gave a response that, while on the fringe of legit, could be considered a side-step. Personal experience has not allowed you to judge all protestant women ministers, as you have not seen all of them in action. You likely have based your opinion on the few that you have seen; and the fact that they dare to step up to a position traditionally held by men is the thing that riles you, not your observation that they are ineffective.

Change takes time. You and I will be long gone before American society accepts women priests and ministers as the norm. It seems that you are unwilling to separate the words “radical” and “feminist”, as if these two ideas can only go hand-in-hand and neither can exist without the other.

If I can get out of the way and endorse a woman for wanting to get married and have a family, stay home with her kids, make a home, etc., then why can’t she get out of my way and endorse me if I want to enter the art world or become an architect or the CFO of a corporation? I don’t require that she wear a shirtwaist dress for her job, and neither should she require that I dress or behave in any particular way in pursuit of excellence in my profession. Why is this thing always either/or? If you don’t care for worldliness, if you abhor the freedom of choice found in a world larger than the home, then teach your girls how to succeed as wives, mothers, homemakers. I don’t view feminism as a religious matter so much as a legal and societal one. Certainly these areas overlap, but within religious training parents can choose the moral code for their kids.

I think it’s important to remember, however, that round parents can have square children, and square parents can have round children (kids can rebel and become the opposite of what you teach just to become who they really are). I’m a woman, I’m a mother, I’m a professional, and I am a feminist. I have had days when I’ve despised being each one of these things. But over 40 years of being active in women’s issues, I’ve learned to be patient and increasingly tolerant of people who do not share my views. Not luke-warm or all-forgiving, just increasingly tolerant.

marietta

 

[Eric_Olsen]

ummm…Marietta. When the Catholic Church ordains women as priests…then the gates of hell will have prevailed. Again…look at what women priests have done to the protestant denominations. I have been there and experienced it. Sorry but it was more than a “few” women who were radical feminists.

And you are comparing apples and oranges with your analogies below and please don’t start preaching about tolerance. Christ’s apostles were men. Men and women play distinct roles in the Catholic church.

Women who want to be priests do it for political reasons. If you listen to their sermons, most are bitter women and preach it from the pulpit.

Eric_Olsen:

Spirit Meadow asked you a legitimate question regarding your view that all protestant women ministers are radical feminists, and you gave a response that, while on the fringe of legit, could be considered a side-step. Personal experience has not allowed you to judge all protestant women ministers, as you have not seen all of them in action. You likely have based your opinion on the few that you have seen; and the fact that they dare to step up to a position traditionally held by men is the thing that riles you, not your observation that they are ineffective.

Change takes time. You and I will be long gone before American society accepts women priests and ministers as the norm. It seems that you are unwilling to separate the words “radical” and “feminist”, as if these two ideas can only go hand-in-hand and neither can exist without the other.

If I can get out of the way and endorse a woman for wanting to get married and have a family, stay home with her kids, make a home, etc., then why can’t she get out of my way and endorse me if I want to enter the art world or become an architect or the CFO of a corporation? I don’t require that she wear a shirtwaist dress for her job, and neither should she require that I dress or behave in any particular way in pursuit of excellence in my profession. Why is this thing always either/or? If you don’t care for worldliness, if you abhor the freedom of choice found in a world larger than the home, then teach your girls how to succeed as wives, mothers, homemakers. I don’t view feminism as a religious matter so much as a legal and societal one. Certainly these areas overlap, but within religious training parents can choose the moral code for their kids.

I think it’s important to remember, however, that round parents can have square children, and square parents can have round children (kids can rebel and become the opposite of what you teach just to become who they really are). I’m a woman, I’m a mother, I’m a professional, and I am a feminist. I have had days when I’ve despised being each one of these things. But over 40 years of being active in women’s issues, I’ve learned to be patient and increasingly tolerant of people who do not share my views. Not luke-warm or all-forgiving, just increasingly tolerant.

marietta

 

[Salonika]

Again…look at what women priests have done to the protestant denominations. I have been there and experienced it. Sorry but it was more than a “few” women who were radical feminists.

So you wipe a whole group for the characterisics of some members and blame them for all that goes wrong. Are all clergy (male and female) to be condemned because a few get into forbidden relationships or misuse their churches’ financial resources.

One thing that women priests and ministers have done for protestant demoninations is to make the clergy more representative of its members, more inclusive. Also each priest or minister has brought her own mix of skills and abilities.

And you are comparing apples and oranges with your analogies below and please don’t start preaching about tolerance. Christ’s apostles were men. Men and women play distinct roles in the Catholic church.

Don’t think that one religious group has the right to dictate to another what sex their clergy should be. If you think you have, then you give the other group the right to dictate to you.

Women who want to be priests do it for political reasons. If you listen to their sermons, most are bitter women and preach it from the pulpit.

Do you really believe that?. Is that based on you listending to every woman priest or minister in your own country. Remember too its often extemists that get all the media attention.

Male clergy too may sound bitter but, like female clergy maybe they are actually angry eg about injustice, abuse by the clergy, about some types of parishioners eg gays, single and older people being stigmatised or limited in the roles they can take up, especially when there is no formal restriction to them doing them.

 

[Telemachus]

One thing that women priests and ministers have done for protestant demoninations is to make the clergy more representative of its members, more inclusive. Also each priest or minister has brought her own mix of skills and abilities.

I don’t understand what you are expecting us to say? “Oh yeah, yer right, the CC must have misundertud reelity somehow.” We’re not Protestants. Women will never be priests in the Catholic Church, and I’m not terribly bothered by that. I’ve listened to the arguments for and against, and the Fors usually rely on secular ideas while the Againsts usually rely on religious tradition. Tough choice for a Catholic…

Are you unfamiliar with “Christianity doesn’t equal egalitarianism”? Christianity pronounces the equality of Man as regards to God the Creator. That is, we’re all sibilings, but we’re not all equally capable of the same things. If you deny this, I don’t know what to say except “take a look around.” Perhaps you think it’s all “social conditioning,” I don’t know.

---

In general feminism is ok until it turns into Feminism. What I mean by this is that mindfulness on the part of men that women have been unjustly discriminated against and treated as “lessers” in some sectors of human society is a good thing. Men should treat women with respect, period. What I don’t like is the rampant egalitarianism – and by logical conclusion, Marxist class-war – that tends to go with most strains (and there’s an infinite number) of feminism.

A woman wants to be an engineer? Fine, let her work for it just like any male. That’s just. Let’s spend tens of millions of dollars every year to indoctrinate girls into thinking they have to be engineers to be any good to society? No, that’s wrong. But I see it all the time at my university, and all I can do is sigh and say to myself “this too shall pass.”

As to the original question, “does God like feminism,” I really doubt God likes any of our “-isms.” An “-ism” tends to be a solution to the question “How do with create a utopia without God?” I think he would prefer us to be good Christians and leave it at that. God is the only legitimate ideologue.

God Bless,
Telemachus

 

[Salonika]

I don’t understand what you are expecting us to say? “Oh yeah, yer right, the CC must have misundertud reelity somehow.” We’re not Protestants. Women will never be priests in the Catholic Church, and I’m not terribly bothered by that. I’ve listened to the arguments for and against, and the Fors usually rely on secular ideas while the Againsts usually rely on religious tradition. Tough choice for a Catholic.

Not expecting anything in particular and I deliberaterly avoided a debate on women and the priesthood in the Catholic church as I was answering Eric’s probably rhetorical question/
comment “Again look at what women priests have done to the protestant denominations.”

we’re all sibilings, but we’re not all equally capable of the same things. If you deny this, I don’t know what to say except “take a look around.” Perhaps you think it’s all “social conditioning,” I don’t know…

Are you saying that we should limit opportunities because not every one is capable of doing the same thing. Rather self-defeating I would say. And yes, social conditioning can play a part in what we can and can’t do, but so does oppportunity to try to do things and encouragement. Tell a child they don’t have the talent to do something and tell them often enough and most will come to believe this. A few won’t and learn to to show you you are wrong.

In general feminism is ok until it turns into Feminism. What I mean by this is that mindfulness on the part of men that women have been unjustly discriminated against and treated as “lessers” in some sectors of human society is a good thing…

A very narrow definition of feminism - don’t women have a role in achieiving it at all.?

Feminism is about options for women - be it engineer, lawyer, teacher, gardener, nun, stay at home Mum. Be it married or single. Whether she is involved in charity work or not. Feminism is to me respecting other people’s choices and having mine respected.

And yes, as well as men respecting women, women should respect men and men and women should respect children and young people and children and young people should respect adults.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

And yes, as well as men respecting women, women should respect men and men and women should respect children and young people and children and young people should respect adults.

Women priests is the assumption that the church is not the bride of Christ. In the CATHOLIC church, the church is the bride and Christ is the groom. Priests are representatives of Christ.

Also - I have seen what women ministers brought to protestant denominations and it is watered down theology thanks to politically correct inclusive language.

And it is more than a few bad apples ruining the bunch.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/f/Women_Priests.htm
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201sbs.asp
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/WHYWOMEN.TXT

 

[Telemachus]

Are you saying that we should limit opportunities because not every one is capable of doing the same thing.

You know I am not arguing that “opportunities should be limited.” Read my post again.

And yes, social conditioning can play a part in what we can and can’t do, but so does oppportunity to try to do things and encouragement. Tell a child they don’t have the talent to do something and tell them often enough and most will come to believe this. A few won’t and learn to to show you you are wrong.

Wrong about what? I never implied for a second that a father, for instance, should tell his little girl “You can’t be an engineer 'cause you’re a girl, honey. Now go play with your easy-bake oven.” I get the impression that feminists think this is exactly what happens though.

Look, there’re a few women studying engineering at my university, but the vast majority of students are males. The feminist attributes this to discrimination at all levels of society. Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. Simply because there are less females in the engineering department of my school doesn’t mean that something is wrong, I think a feminist would tend to disagree and say that this is evidence of discrimination. I consider this conclusion foolish and needlessly combative.

A very narrow definition of feminism - don’t women have a role in achieiving it at all.?

Feminism is about options for women - be it engineer, lawyer, teacher, gardener, nun, stay at home Mum. Be it married or single. Whether she is involved in charity work or not. Feminism is to me respecting other people’s choices and having mine respected.

Well, one’s definition of feminism seems to be as good as the next, so whether or not mine is any worse is a bit of a moot point. Except, I’m a man, so any definition of feminism by me is inherently wrong, I suppose.

Achieving what? That’s what I don’t understand. You live in a society where there is almost no judgement concerning people’s choices, right or wrong. Feminism has won if that’s the case. (I’m assuming you’re in the USA.) So what’s left? The attempted bringing-about of an egalitarian utopia through state-coercion? Yes, I’m opposed to that. Women deciding what they want to do with their lives free of coercion? No, that’s just fine by me.

---

I personally would like to have a wife that would put our children ahead of her career. If I help bring a child into this world, I would like my wife to stay at home and take care of it while I go and maintain our financial stability. Once the child is entering school and doesn’t need a parent at home so often, and she feels like she needs to do something else for a bit, I’ll be supportive. And throughout it all, I’m willing to carry my weight in terms of home-economics and maintenance.

I suspect that it’s that sort of thinking that the feminist wants to do away with, but I’ll always be of the opinion that the woman, not the man, is best-suited to staying home and taking care of children. That’s not all that she’s good at, but it’s definitely something that women seem to be more suited to than men. I don’t know why, I just look at families (past and present), and that’s what I see. It has something to do with the correspondence of “feminine” and “caring and nurturing” I suppose. I see it as the natural order of things, and I don’t see why the natural order should be continually upset so as to achieve the egalitarian utopia that is sought after by most secular ideologies.

---

So, I guess this is my question. Do you believe that God established a “natural order” – that is, an unchanging form of relations and behaviors – concerning men and women? If so, how do we figure out what this natural order is? If not, then what actually distinguishes men and women besides physical characteristics? Or are they simply interchangable?

 

[marietta]

The Original Catholic Encyclopedia, as referenced by Eric_Olsen, offers us this enlightened view of the role of women in today’s society and today’s Church:

“This may strike some as unfair, but realize that God has given women other gifts that he has not given to men. For example, women bring the body of Christ (souls) into the world one birth at a time. Men do not have this privilege. Priests bring the body of Christ (Eucharist) into the world one Mass at a time—a gift reserved to them, acting in the person of Christ.”

Motherhood as a trade-off for priesthood? There are no words to describe how lame this argument is.

So, girls, if you cannot bear children, you are SOL here - you have no place, no role, no identity. Maybe it’s time to consider what the Episcopal church has to offer in the way of realizing your full potential as far as carrying the message of Jesus Christ to His people.

marietta