Women demand greater say in future of Catholic Church

[Elizabeth502]

I think this recent papal election is a good example of why women would not (i.m.o.) have been helpful to the selection process. Essentially (according to them), the Cardinals chose a pastor’s pastor. It was discerned that such was one of the most pressing needs in the leadership of the universal Church at this time. (This makes perfect sense, by the way, to anyone who has been watching the various needs of that Church Universal.)

Women are valuable and essential in many roles in the Church, in various kinds of discernment, judgment, weighing of possibilities, but not directly in this particular way. However, as I said earlier, women are indirectly involved in the election of Popes, as conscientious priests who become bishops who become cardinals consider implicitly influences from female professionals in the Church.

I also find it really peculiar that men seem to have a better understanding, and a more humble attitude, toward the reality of roles in everyday life (in and out of the Church) than modern women often do. Men will say, “I really can’t do that the way women can,” (or “as well as a woman can”). They don’t need to win every “victory” in every facet of life to feel complete as men – at least the men I know! They don’t think it diminishes their manhood not to play every conceivable role in and out of the Church. A minuscule percentage of them will also (like lay and religious women) have any “say” in the election of a Pope. Actually, some women religious may (implicitly) have “more” influence than most laymen do.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

With all due respect to the people that bring up our Holy Mother, what does she have to do with this?

If women were asking, “Why are there no positive female Christian role models?” then that would be a good answer.

I think the question that is really in need of hashing out is why do we have men acting “in persona Christi” and no equivalent roles for women acting “in persona Mary,” so to speak?

A lot of responses focus on, for example, women as DRE (directors of religious education), but there is NOTHING stopping men from being DRE’s, or doing any of the other various jobs discussed (secretaries and such). So basically when you tell me that what I hear is: “women get the scraps and leftovers after men take the positions that *really matter.” I guess it is just me, but that doesn’t sound like women are a very important part of the Church at all!!!

You keep saying “women are equals”, they just have “different roles”, but then almost all of the “roles” you describe for them are not exclusively their own in the way the entire leadership (read: the Priests and Bishops) of the Church is. So separate but equal in this case sounds a heck of a lot like the separate but unequal practiced in the Old South.

Where is all of the love for our Nuns? It seems that the only time I hear anything about them is when the Vatican is condemning them for “feminism.” What are our Nuns doing? Why are they valuable? Why are they important? What are they contributing? Where is the recruitment drive for them that we have for Priests?
DaddyGirl:

It’s not a power thing (like I do think it is for some men)…it truly is a feeling/calling thing. It’s not about winning.

The hypocrisy is amusing: when men try to lead, have their say, influence policy, etc. then ohhh nooooo, it’s not about the power at all, how dare you even accuse us of that?

When women try to do likewise it’s, “you’re just a lousy bunch of feminists on a power trip!”

LOL. Double standards much?

Elizabeth502:

They don’t think it diminishes their manhood not to play every conceivable role in and out of the Church

Um… what role aren’t they allowed to play in Church. again? Remind me?

 

[Elizabeth502]

With all what role aren’t they allowed to play in Church. again? Remind me?

I think you’re entirely missing the boat, but many of your male peers do understand. What they understand is that there are some things that most women do a lot better than most men. Who cares if some men value such roles less than visible “power” roles in the Church (roles which mimic secular roles)? Men who matter do admit, sometimes publicly, and certain confidentially, that there are ways that women are more influential than they are. Influence is a form of power, whether you care to admit that or not.

 

[Santi2]

With all due respect to the people that bring up our Holy Mother, what does she have to do with this?

If women were asking, “Why are there no positive female Christian role models?” then that would be a good answer.

I think the question that is really in need of hashing out is why do we have men acting “in persona Christi” and no equivalent roles for women acting “in persona Mary,” so to speak?

For the simple reason that some women portray women in the Church as oppressed and subordinate to men, which Our Lady was not. And, because we are taught to follow in Her footsteps, one can take to that as acting in persona Mary.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I think you’re entirely missing the boat, but many of your male peers do understand. What they understand is that there are some things that most women do a lot better than most men. Who cares if some men value such roles less than visible “power” roles in the Church (roles which mimic secular roles)? Men who matter do admit, sometimes publicly, and certain confidentially, that there are ways that women are more influential than they are. Influence is a form of power, whether you care to admit that or not.

So, is this sorta like having a “secret girlfriend/secret boyfriend”?

Like, “women are equal and important in the Church, we just can’t really talk about it or demonstrate it but trust me in some invisible way that we can’t yet describe, they are crucial!”

I truly mean no offense by that, but that’s what I hear when you say it the way you do.

Santi2:

For the simple reason that some women portray women in the Church as oppressed and subordinate to men, which Our Lady was not.

When it comes to the** present **condition of women, how is a 2,000 year old example relevant?

And, because we are taught to follow in Her footsteps, one can take to that as acting in persona Mary.

Well I suppose anyone that was so inclined could mimic the behavior of the Holy Mother but it wouldn’t indicate anything about the present treatment of women by society/Catholic culture.

PS please don’t take my comments as a slight on our Holy Mother, that is not what I mean at all.

 

[Santi2]

When it comes to the** present **condition of women, how is a 2,000 year old example relevant?

The virtues of Our Lady are not made redundant by the passing of time, VLM.

Well I suppose anyone that was so inclined could mimic the behavior of the Holy Mother but it wouldn’t indicate anything about the present treatment of women by society/Catholic culture.

I am able to meet you half-way with your submission in view of the fact that some Catholic men tend to forget that St Joseph is their role model.

PS please don’t take my comments as a slight on our Holy Mother, that is not what I mean at all.

I understand.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So, is this sorta like having a “secret girlfriend/secret boyfriend”?

Like, “women are equal and important in the Church, we just can’t really talk about it or demonstrate it but trust me in some invisible way that we can’t yet describe, they are crucial!”

You mean the way we’re talking about it here, you mean the way that women Walk the Talk when they serve, create, empower, facilitate, influence, lead, and act in the Church? That’s “invisible?” Do you hear yourself? Have you let the secular political world so influence your understanding that it’s impossible for you to envision “power” except in male political paradigms?

I truly mean no offense by that, but that’s what I hear when you say it the way you do.

I do take offense. I take offense by what gets translated through words as condescension regarding differences in power and service, and by your characterization of female service, leadership, and activity as beneath the “demonstration of power” with which you apparently identify maleness or masculinity, or “true power,” which to you must be political. Many men do not agree with you, and “men of power” in the Catholic Church also acknolwedge that power as “rank” is often not as effective as other kinds of power. It has its uses; it is also has its limitations.

please don’t take my comments as a slight on our Holy Mother, that is not what I mean at all.

I take them as a slight on two things: (1) womanhood, as both understood and represented outside of Our Blessed Mother; (2) manhood.

Have a nice day.

 

[Corki]

A lot of responses focus on, for example, women as DRE (directors of religious education), but there is NOTHING stopping men from being DRE’s, or doing any of the other various jobs discussed (secretaries and such). So basically when you tell me that what I hear is: “women get the scraps and leftovers after men take the positions that *really matter.” I guess it is just me, but that doesn’t sound like women are a very important part of the Church at all!!!

Do you think that being a DRE is “getting the scraps”? In our parish, the DRE is the most powerful and influential person in the place - even Father defers to her on most decisions. We have only a few men in DRE roles in our diocese primarily because men don’t tend to be willing to do what it takes to get to that position. DREs usually have at least a decade of classroom teaching, are fully certified through the diocese and VIRTUS; it’s preferred they have a MA in theology and are willing to work nights and weekends.

What would be an equivalent position at the parish level the “really matters”? How about head of the parish council? No, wait, that’s a woman too. Finance council? Woman. The only “power position” in our parish held by a man is the head of the KoC.

You see some of the converse by the way from the women “priest” movement. These women, for the most part, have not gone to seminary, have not made promises of obedience, celibacy or simplicity of life. They had careers and families and now think it would be “cool” if they could be a priest.

You keep saying “women are equals”, they just have “different roles”, but then almost all of the “roles” you describe for them are not exclusively their own in the way the entire leadership (read: the Priests and Bishops) of the Church is. So separate but equal in this case sounds a heck of a lot like the separate but unequal practiced in the Old South.

You are correct that there is no female equivalent for clergy. So what?

Where is all of the love for our Nuns? It seems that the only time I hear anything about them is when the Vatican is condemning them for “feminism.” What are our Nuns doing? Why are they valuable? Why are they important? What are they contributing? Where is the recruitment drive for them that we have for Priests?

You don’t get out much do you? The sisters that have rebelled get more press, that’s true but they are not the majority of women in religious life. Most of the sisters are valued and are very important in the Church. They contribute primarily through service to the poor, teaching, nursing or contemplation according to the charism of their particular order. They do have a lot of “recruitment” drives but probably not so visible. In part that is because they focus on young women and not the press but also because many of these orders are already too full.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You don’t get out much do you?

 

[Brendan]

I

1. Women feel called to this ministry
2. It would free up busy priests to do other things
3. It is a traditional role for women that was part of the early church.
4. It would be official recognition of the service women do for the church.
5. Both married and single women could be included

I’m sure there are other reasons.

So if a woman feels called to Baptize and witness marriages, she can petition her bishop to allow her to do so. There are lay women who do this in some diocese already.
Would you not trust the bishop to know if the priests of his diocese need the additional assistance?

That can be done without reestablishing the lay role of Deaconess, could it not?

If she feels called to preach, she can volunteer as a catechist in the parish and run classes. That would just require her pastor’s approval. Again, lots of women have this role.

As far as any feelings of being called, that is meaningless. A calling can only be a true one if it has the support of the Church. Any other calling is a false one, regardless of the personal feelings of any individual.

And the traditional role of the deaconess was to instruct women catechumens, and to baptize adult women. Women are already performing the role of catechist, and it would be up to the bishop to determine if the priests of the diocese need assistance in the role of minister of baptism.

 

[catholicmom2010]

As a woman doctor, before I learned my faith, I had many of these same dissenting thoughts. The church should do this, or not do that. The more I have learned about God and our Catholic faith, the more I felt humbled by His majesty and truly free. Jesus left us the Church to lead us and guide us in all truth. When we learn to let go of our wants and preferences and completely give our obedience and trust to the Lord, then we are truly free. The more we try to replace God’s ways with our own opinions, the more we become like Adam and Eve, trusting more in ourselves than in God. God’s plan is perfect and I submit myself to His Body, the Church.

 

[mark_a]

As a woman doctor, before I learned my faith, I had many of these same dissenting thoughts. The church should do this, or not do that. The more I have learned about God and our Catholic faith, the more I felt humbled by His majesty and truly free. Jesus left us the Church to lead us and guide us in all truth. When we learn to let go of our wants and preferences and completely give our obedience and trust to the Lord, then we are truly free. The more we try to replace God’s ways with our own opinions, the more we become like Adam and Eve, trusting more in ourselves than in God. God’s plan is perfect and I submit myself to His Body, the Church.

Very well put. Thank you!

 

[adrift]

I don’t understand the idea that the priesthood is a position of power when Jesus said it was a position of service???

 

[twf]

In the early Church, laity did play a role in the election of the Bishop of Rome (as well as other bishops), and even in the Middle Ages, not all cardinals were ordained priests/bishops…perhaps a possible solution would be to appoint certain prominent women religious (abbesses and mother superiors I would think) to the college of cardinals simply to recognize the important role women do play in the life of the Church.

 

[bellasbane]

So if a woman feels called to Baptize and witness marriages, she can petition her bishop to allow her to do so. There are lay women who do this in some diocese already.
Would you not trust the bishop to know if the priests of his diocese need the additional assistance?

That can be done without reestablishing the lay role of Deaconess, could it not?

If she feels called to preach, she can volunteer as a catechist in the parish and run classes. That would just require her pastor’s approval. Again, lots of women have this role.

As far as any feelings of being called, that is meaningless. A calling can only be a true one if it has the support of the Church. Any other calling is a false one, regardless of the personal feelings of any individual.

And the traditional role of the deaconess was to instruct women catechumens, and to baptize adult women. Women are already performing the role of catechist, and it would be up to the bishop to determine if the priests of the diocese need assistance in the role of minister of baptism.

Its good to hear women are already doing all these things. That means if the Bishops decide to reinstate the role of Deaconess, it shouldn’t make much of a difference in most parishes. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

 

[bellasbane]

In the early Church, laity did play a role in the election of the Bishop of Rome (as well as other bishops), and even in the Middle Ages, not all cardinals were ordained priests/bishops…perhaps a possible solution would be to appoint certain prominent women religious (abbesses and mother superiors I would think) to the college of cardinals simply to recognize the important role women do play in the life of the Church.

This is just a wild idea but…

Maybe we could have a council of mothers select the Pope. They would be like the person of Mary at the wedding of Cana, tapping her son on his shoulder to tell him to start his ministry. That would be cool!

 

[Corki]

1. Women feel called to this ministry
2. It would free up busy priests to do other things
3. It is a traditional role for women that was part of the early church.
4. It would be official recognition of the service women do for the church.
5. Both married and single women could be included

1,2, and 5 are already being done by women especially those in leadership roles such as Parish Administrators and DREs.

1. is not a good reason by itself. Much has changed about society and the Church since the first century.
2. there have already been several documents that address the important role of women in the Church. Would a new title really change anything?

.

And the traditional role of the deaconess was to instruct women catechumens, and to baptize adult women. Women are already performing the role of catechist, and it would be up to the bishop to determine if the priests of the diocese need assistance in the role of minister of baptism.

This is a very important point. Deacons serve the Bishop to go and do what the Bishop needs. Setting aside the linguistic argument about deacon/deaconess and the differences between being ordained and selected, etc, etc., etc. the role of the deaconess would be to do what the Bishop needs.

What do today’s Bishops need deaconesses to do that lay women in the Church are not already doing? The need to have women for baptizing other women and for visiting sick women when men were not allowed is no longer a need of the Church. It’s no longer considered scandoulous for priests or deacons to do this. So what is the important unfulfilled **need of the Church **that deaconesses would fill?

 

[edwest2]

So, is this sorta like having a “secret girlfriend/secret boyfriend”?

Like, “women are equal and important in the Church, we just can’t really talk about it or demonstrate it but trust me in some invisible way that we can’t yet describe, they are crucial!”

I truly mean no offense by that, but that’s what I hear when you say it the way you do.

When it comes to the** present **condition of women, how is a 2,000 year old example relevant?

Well I suppose anyone that was so inclined could mimic the behavior of the Holy Mother but it wouldn’t indicate anything about the present treatment of women by society/Catholic culture.

PS please don’t take my comments as a slight on our Holy Mother, that is not what I mean at all.

What is the present treatment of women?

Peace,
Ed

 

[livingwordunity]

That’s funny…because I see it in a completely different light.
I feel as though many men say “Oh, I can’t do it as well as she does…” not because they are more humble or have a better understanding, but often…because they don’t want to do things that are new to them or that they might not be good at or…they just don’t want to do it, they don’t like it.

Whereas women are so used to multi-tasking and having to dive into new territory and overload themselves with work…they try not to complain and say they can’t do something because they don’t want to burden other people or let people down or admit it might be difficult…so they just do it themselves, do it anyway. It’s not a “victory” or “winning” thing–quite the opposite, from my perspective.
To me, they are being noble and working their butts off and trying to be strong and take care of everyone and everything and use all their abilities and talents.

I don’t think women feel it diminishes their womanhood if they can’t play every role.
But we would certainly like and need the opportunity for varied roles…because some of us are good at some things, and some of us are good at other things.
So it makes sense to have a variety of options.
Some women are better at staying home with the kids…another woman might be better at being a kick-*** lawyer and she saves dozens of innocent convicts from death row.
So we’d like to have the option of everything so we can choose wisely and pick what we are best and most effective at.

It’s not as though women feel “diminished” in their womanhood that they can’t be priests or a pope, for example. It’s more that women feel the calling to be priests. It’s not a power thing (like I do think it is for some men)…it truly is a feeling/calling thing. It’s not about winning.

Men pretty much have access to the “best” options already and always have…so there is no role they really need to fight for that they can’t have. A man can even stay home and take care of the kids if he wants.

I think the way the Pope is chosen is the best system on earth for choosing a leader. Just look at the extremely sharp contrast between the prayerful and humble way Pope Francis was chosen vs. the self-centered pride, greed, slander, voter fraud, and other kinds of dirty politics of the last American presidential election. Would you really want the Papal election to look more like American politics?

 

[livingwordunity]

…