Women, at the Heart of the Church

[manualman]

GemmaRose,

You called women who choose to marry and raise their children fulltime, I quote, “broodmares.” I did not put words in your mouth, you typed them there. When you compare such women to mindless beasts of burden YOU are the one denigrating women, not me. You may not have consciously intended it, but that is the logical meaning of YOUR words.

I’d have a lot more sympathy for your feelings if you didn’t denigrate holy women in such a way.

There is no question that men have behaved badly over the centuries and used their positions in the world and in the church for personal gain. I just think it is sad that instead of recognizing the BEHAVIOR as a problem, the behavior is assumed and the solution is to establish a competitive counterbalance. As if God didn’t exist and the Church were a human construct.

 

[GemmaRose]

Actually its more subtle. She’s almost right. She doesn’t have to agree. She is free to have difficulty with Church teaching and to continue to wrestle with the concept trying to understand it. Indeed she must! She is doing the right thing in obeying (not getting faux ordained). The only fault I think she is showing here is in presenting her struggle as an argument against the Church instead of an acknowledgement of her struggles with the idea. The latter is constructive and leads to growth. The former is divisive and leads to hardening of heart.

Thank you. Not only would I NEVER get “ordained,” I would never even attend any “faux Mass” that some of these groups that I’ve heard about hold. I’ve never even Googled any of these groups! I know the name of one, and I think I learned of the name on a CAF thread a while back. I think it’s the Women’s Ordination Conference.

Maybe the reason I present the issue in the way I do is because no one has ever satisfactorily answered the questions I have. Additionally, I would like the Church, sometime in my lifetime, to make a statement on the dignity of women which did not include our ability to bear children. Women are more than walking wombs.

---

*“Dear God, do You know the greatest grief one of Your creatures can bear? It is the thought that she can never love You enough. ” *- St. Gemma Galgani

 

[GemmaRose]

The very sad thing is your language and the way you view womanhood!

What do you find sad about my language? The use of the word “penis?” Would you rather I use one of the dozens and dozens of other terms for it? Grow up.

I have a very healthy way of viewing womanhood. Unfortunately, the Church does not. “Woman” and “womb” are not synonymous.

---

*“Dear God, do You know the greatest grief one of Your creatures can bear? It is the thought that she can never love You enough. ” *- St. Gemma Galgani

 

[mercygate]

I’ll stand along side you as the stones start flying!

And here I thought I was the only female that didn’t feel like a second class citizen.

It always amuses me to hear about how the church looks down on women. Can someone please explain to me, then, all the devotion to Mary???

Female here. Convert to the Church. I’m in line beside you. Oh: Seminary graduate, trained as a priest in the Episcopal Church.

 

[GemmaRose]

Well, at my church our liturgy coordinator is a woman, as is our DRE, music director, etc. We have women on the parish council, female lectors, EMHC’s, altar servers, and most importantly, women in the pews praying for the church! I also know many women who serve at the diocesan level. As for going “higher up” than that, I’ll admit, I’m not an expert on the church hierarchy, but it seems to me that behind every holy man, there is a woman praying for him.

Women are allowed to “read.” They are not allowed to be officially installed as “Lectors” because they are not a man.

The Church has finally allowed female altar servers, however they are not, and cannot be installed as, acolytes, because they are not male.

No doubt that the women in the pews praying, and the women praying “behind” every great man, are the very backbone of the Church. However, women should not be “behind” the men, nor should they be in front. They, we, should be side by side, equals as God created us both, in His very image.

---

*“Dear God, do You know the greatest grief one of Your creatures can bear? It is the thought that she can never love You enough. ” *- St. Gemma Galgani

 

[manualman]

1. I would appreciate your not putting YOUR WORDS into MY MOUTH. That you have done so, is so typical for so many men.

I have not denigrated full-time mothers, however, the dignity of a woman does not lie in childbearing alone. That you would suggest it does betrays how you feel about women.

To lump all other women into a group that “grasps for fortune, fame, power and influence” is yet another example of your disgusting chauvinistic attitude, not to mention that you are so far from the truth in my regard that if you had the slightest clue, you would beg for my forgiveness.

1. What other roles have women been granted over the centuries?
2. Again, I have never denigrated the role of mother, but to assert as the Church does that this is where our dignity lies, reduces all womens’ value to nothing but broodmares.

4.Again, you have put YOUR WORDS into MY MOUTH.

Women have absolutely no say in anything in the Church, as several prior posts of others have noted. Since women make up half of humanity, and probably more than half of the membership of the Church, hasn’t it ever crossed your mind that this is basically a very unfair situation? No, I would guess it hasn’t.

By the way, you’re the one who seems to be inordinately obsessed with the idea of power.

A point by point response is instructive here.

1. Pot, meet kettle. You accuse me of putting words in your mouth (as if I came up with broodmare as a description for full time moms). Then you have the audacity to accuse me having lumped ALL other women into the category I described is really rich. The fact that an opposite type of group exists does not mean there are not OTHER types. I even conveniently listed them for you further in my post (religious orders, hospitals, charities, professors…) I don’t know you and can only judge by what you post. If I’m wrong, then I DO beg your forgiveness. But let’s see first.
2. Did I not mention a bunch? And I rather suspect that these roles weren’t GRANTED to women, but established by them. They saw a need and found a way to meet it. Some were opposed, but they overcame the opposition because it was not a well founded opposition.
3. You refute yourself better than I ever could. Broodmares! Sheesh. I don’t know you, but my wife has sure met a good number of women who use language like you do. She feels a LOT more denigrated by them than any vestigial patriarchy in this culture.
4. Women have quite a bit of SAY in the Church. I mean, has the Inquisition paid YOU a visit yet for speaking out in a forbidden fashion? I’ve never heard of any woman being muzzled for a theological opinion. Furthermore, I’d say parish and diocesan employees are women more often than men by at least a 5 to one basis. That’s SAY right where the rubber meets the road.
   What you mean is that it is unfair that women aren’t allowed positions of power. You protest my reading into your words, but what else could you mean? You HAVE a voice, but that isn’t enough. What you want is a VOTE. That’s power, even if you don’t like the word.

But the priesthood isn’t supposed to be about power. ANYBODY who approaches it that way shouldn’t be one. Besides, you are missing the REAL opportunity. Cardinals do NOT have to be priests by Tradition. That’s a recent convention. Their ranks once included married, non-ordained men, IIRC. Your grievance would be better addressed by asking why the superiors of women’s orders couldn’t be Cardinals. There’s NOT a great reason that can’t be so.

 

[iamrefreshed]

What do you find sad about my language? The use of the word “penis?” Would you rather I use one of the dozens and dozens of other terms for it? Grow up.

I’m not the one using infantile language for shock value. You need to grow up! It is offensive when you use it as you did.

I have a very healthy way of viewing womanhood. Unfortunately, the Church does not. “Woman” and “womb” are not synonymous.

But you chose to make them synonymous when you referred to women as ‘broodmares’.

 

[GemmaRose]

For those who don’t believe in certain Church teachings what makes you think that the ones you DO agree with are correct?

I guess you all just know better than 2000 years of Tradition and Doctrine?
“We” are intelligent and can read the Gospel, and can identify the times when 2,000 years of Tradition have not complied with the words of Christ.

Well, since it was good enough for Luther it can be good enough for you!
Luther disagreed (and many of the things he disagreed with were abuses going on in the Church at the time) AND disobeyed. There’s a world of difference.

---

*“Dear God, do You know the greatest grief one of Your creatures can bear? It is the thought that she can never love You enough. ” *- St. Gemma Galgani

 

[iamrefreshed]

Since you ignored the question I’ll repost it.

For those who don’t believe in certain Church teachings what makes you think that the ones you DO agree with are correct?

Why not make abortion or euthanasia OK?

 

[wisdom_3_5]

I would like the Church, sometime in my lifetime, to make a statement on the dignity of women which did not include our ability to bear children. Women are more than walking wombs.

Here ya go! JP II on the dignity of women. Honestly, read the whole thing.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

 

[manualman]

One of the hazards of posting between work assignments is the tendency to bring work stress and emotions into a discussion. My tone above isn’t always the most constructive. For that I apologize.

I think the issue of sexual identity is a central one today and worthy of hearty debate. But I need not be snide about it.

 

[cathgal]

gemmarose:

Whoever said it was ‘unheard of’

*Read a little about the social structure and culture of the time. *

Afraid you’re getting it from the wrong source

Yes, Jesus gave high regard to women, but not in the way you expected.

You are mistaken. Jesus gave high regard to women in the way I would expect Him to do. It was His male followers who did not follow suit.

You expect Him to give them woman ordination. All your complains are centered on this and you know it.

So why do you suppose Jesus didn’t choose them as one of the 12 ??

Ever ponder thiss ?

*I have pondered how, after His resurrection, Jesus appeared FIRST to a faithful women and sent her as an “apostle to the apostles,” yet, 2,000 years later, a woman is still a second class citizen in the eyes of the Church. Yes, I do ponder this. *

Again, your complains are self-centered.

What a way to degrade women with such verbage as yours.

If there ever was a one who demeans women, it’s you !
Speaking the truth does not degrade women. And speaking the truth has never been popular. People still are crucified for speaking the truth.

You’re right that the truth is unpopular. That’s why there are still people such as you who cannot accept that women can never and will never be priests and so they crucify women for being what God creates them to be!

 

[cathgal]

I believe women should be involved in every aspect of the church. I don’t believe the theachings of Christ would discriminate against women.

Would it be discrimination if the Catholic church did not allow black men to become priests? So why then is not discrimination to not allow women to be priest? This is a rule handed down by men and not from Jesus.

Really?

So why didn’t Jesus choose women as one of the 12 ?

 

[jweich]

BUT, women priests or deacons… UNHEARD OF!

One quick point before a broader one: at the time, it would have made a lot of sense for Jesus to have chosen women to be among those ordained to the priesthood. It was common practice among the various pagan religions of the day to have women priestesses as ‘clergy’ or equivalents to perform rituals for the community. It seems more likely that the more ‘unheard of’ thing to do was to neglect to include them among the 12, even while treating women as his closest friends and followers. Likewise in the early Church, had this issue been viewed as a practical one, and not as a matter of doctrinal importance, for the purposes of winning converts from those pagan religions, it again would have been more than sensible to have women ordained to the priesthood.

This speaks to the broader reality that our holy mother Church points to defend this practice instituted by Christ Himself, that is that there are real and genuine differences between male and female that go beyond mere “equipment,” and that even in our inability to comprehend what those differences are or why it would be impossible to ordain women, God Himself had something in mind in chosing men to be among the appointed 12, and not women, and in a historical and cultural context wherein (contrary to popular belief) it actually would have made sense to ordain women.

I also think this discussion springs from a much misunderstood modern conception of “rights,” as though, by virtue of our existence, we are entitle to every conceivable arena of human experience. It is important to remember that along with women, most men are not called to the priesthood either. Though I am male, I don’t have a “right” to become a priest, whereas a woman would not. I don’t have a “right” to get married and become a father, either. “Rights” language has its place - usually in politics. When it comes to where we stand before the Lord, talking about “my rights” versus “your rights” is at best presumptuous. Existence is pure gift. And the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, is also gift. To portray the development of doctrine and transmission of the faith as some grand power play executed by miserly old men is to fundamentally misunderstand the mission and purpose of the Church. The Church exists to guard and pass on through history the depositum fidei. Period. Nothing, no cultural fad, passing notion of what my ‘rights’ are or modern theory of the nature of human sexuality supercedes the ultimate reality the God became incarnate, died and rose, and gave us Peter to whom to look for the truth of the faith. If you think that our magisterium is just a bunch of guys who get to call the shots and are hoarding the “decision-making power” for themselves, then I think you need to look again at the purposes of this divinely-ordained institution.

 

[jweich]

Remember that John Paul II, in Ordinatio Sacerdotales, in affirming the continuing tradition of ordaining men to the sacramental priesthood, uses language unheard of in the modern secular realm - instead of saying, no, we won’t ordain women, he basically said no, sorry, we can’t ordain women. Our society is so self-centered and concerned with “rights”, and with running screaming from anything that might remotely in some universe resemble an upside form of “discrimination,” that its often hard for us to imagine bowing to the idea of a Truth above our heads. Because of what we know about what Jesus did, John Paul declared that it was not even within his authority as pope(!) to sanction the ordination of women. This is a huge point, and we have to look closely at it, and remember why, and what is at stake. The sacraments are at stake. God gave us the priesthood, not so that they could give us a bunch of rules, but so that we could have access to his grace through the sacraments.

IF the sacraments truly, and in reality, are means of transmitting the very grace and life of God;

AND departing from what is known about Jesus’ actions, and those of the first Christians, concerning ordination to the priesthood would call into the question the validity of that sacramental priesthood;

THEN the validity of the sacraments would be jeopardized.

Hence, can’t do it. Not worth it.

What could be more important than ensuring the validity of the sacraments, the forgiveness of sins, and access to the body and blood of God Himself?

If you think that ordaining women because it feels right in our current socio-political climate is more important than ensuring access to this divine grace, then… I don’t know what to tell you.

 

[thedavidwilson]

thedavidwilson;3605379:

No, you have to OBEY. OBEY and AGREE are two different things.

Example: A couple wanting to space the birth of their children might believe that the most effective way of doing that is with some form of artificial birth control, but in order to be obedient to the teachings of the Church, use NFP. They sacrifice their own belief and desire in favor of obedience to the teaching of the Church.

Biblical: Jesus explained the difference in the parable of the two brothers, the one who agreed to go to work in the fields as his father requested, yet did not go, and the other brother who refused to go then thought about it and did obey his father’s request. Jesus showed how highly He prizes obedience by saying that it was the second son who did his father’s will (i.e., the one who sacrificed his desire to be a “couch potato” in favor of obedience to his father’s request).

---

*“Dear God, do You know the greatest grief one of Your creatures can bear? It is the thought that she can never love You enough. ” *- St. Gemma Galgani

Isn’t obeying the physical acting out of agreement (which is an act of the free will)? In the parable you mention above I would argue that the second son did agree. He had to think about it for a bit but eventually he did (obeyed) his fathers will. If we, on the surface, act as if we are Catholics yet in our hearts not believe in what it means to be catholic does that not demonstrate some duplicity.

As Catholics we must profess faith in Christ even if we don’t fully understand the reasons for it, and then act out that faith. The first part is the agreement. The second part is the obeying. Both of these are acts of the will. Both of these must be present to be in union with Christ and his Chruch.

It is an act of the will to say/believe that women should not be priests, abortion is wrong, etc even if we don’t *feel *that way.

 

[cecilia97]

It has been nice knowing you all, and I have really enjoyed participating in Catholic Answers Forums. I say this because immediately after my comments below are read, I expect to be stoned on the front lawn.

There are women in cloisters all over the world who live lives of silence and humility and prayer. No one ever hears their opinions on how the Church is run because they never give voice to their opinions, having more important things to do - like praying. Do these women’s lives have value? Nobody sees them, or hears them, or listens to them. Yet, I believe as do they, their lives have a great impact on the world and on the Church.

If you feel that the Church is not giving your opinions the consideration they deserve go to your needs and tell God your opinions. If they have merit, I’m sure He’ll pass them on to the Bishops.

I very much agree that a woman does not need to be a mover and a shaker to impact the world and the Church. Example: there are Poor Clare sisters in your part of the state who do much good in the world simply by praying and fasting. They never even set foot outside the monastary and I believe they have saved lives!

The difference between those sweet nuns and much of our society today is that they don’t seek recognition for the good they do.

 

[GemmaRose]

GemmaRose,

You called women who choose to marry and raise their children fulltime, I quote, “broodmares.” I did not put words in your mouth, you typed them there. When you compare such women to mindless beasts of burden YOU are the one denigrating women, not me. You may not have consciously intended it, but that is the logical meaning of YOUR words.
No - YOU have expanded MY words and twisted them into YOUR interpretation.

The Church (i.e., the Magisterium) has consistently spoken of the dignity of women being linked to their procreative faculties. If that is the only dignity the Church can come up with, then it is the Church who has placed women’s value at little more than a broodmare.

I think women who raise their children full time are darn near miracle workers, esepecially in today’s world where it’s nearly impossible to get by without two incomes. Dozens of descriptions come to mind for such women… clever, industrious, loving, self-sacrificing, inventive… the list can go on and on. For the Church to consistenly focus on one thing, i.e. babymaking, denigrates them and all women who have so many other qualities other than birthing.

I’d have a lot more sympathy for your feelings if you didn’t denigrate holy women in such a way.
I repeat, it is the Church who denigrates women.

There is no question that men have behaved badly over the centuries and used their positions in the world and in the church for personal gain. I just think it is sad that instead of recognizing the BEHAVIOR as a problem, the behavior is assumed and the solution is to establish a competitive counterbalance. As if God didn’t exist and the Church were a human construct.
The bad BEHAVIOR still remains. It’s 2008 for goodness sake! It’s time for the bad BEHAVIOR to stop. The only difference is that finally women are starting to speak out against the injustices they find in the Church.

The Church has also SAID that there should not be discrimination to women as regards salary… yet it still pays (BEHAVIOR) Catholic school teachers an unliveable salary.

It is time for the Church to start practising what it supposedly preaches.

---

*“Dear God, do You know the greatest grief one of Your creatures can bear? It is the thought that she can never love You enough. ” *- St. Gemma Galgani

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Are you just as sure the Bishops will listen?

I believe they already have and that is why the Church is as it is.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Remember that John Paul II, in Ordinatio Sacerdotales, in affirming the continuing tradition of ordaining men to the sacramental priesthood, uses language unheard of in the modern secular realm - instead of saying, no, we won’t ordain women, he basically said no, sorry, we can’t ordain women. Our society is so self-centered and concerned with “rights”, and with running screaming from anything that might remotely in some universe resemble an upside form of “discrimination,” that its often hard for us to imagine bowing to the idea of a Truth above our heads. Because of what we know about what Jesus did, John Paul declared that it was not even within his authority as pope(!) to sanction the ordination of women. This is a huge point, and we have to look closely at it, and remember why, and what is at stake. The sacraments are at stake. God gave us the priesthood, not so that they could give us a bunch of rules, but so that we could have access to his grace through the sacraments.

IF the sacraments truly, and in reality, are means of transmitting the very grace and life of God;

AND departing from what is known about Jesus’ actions, and those of the first Christians, concerning ordination to the priesthood would call into the question the validity of that sacramental priesthood;

THEN the validity of the sacraments would be jeopardized.

Hence, can’t do it. Not worth it.

What could be more important than ensuring the validity of the sacraments, the forgiveness of sins, and access to the body and blood of God Himself?

If you think that ordaining women because it feels right in our current socio-political climate is more important than ensuring access to this divine grace, then… I don’t know what to tell you.

Excellent posts jweich! Hopefully people will come to understand that Christ instituted a male priesthood because it was part of His plan and stop the bellyaching about ‘rights’.