Women in the Church

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Kendy:

I am not sure how a I have contradicted myself, but I do think that decision making is part of genuine inclusion.

But you’re right. It’s not going to happen.

Kendy

Where I see the contradiction is that in one place you say they should be decision makers (at least that is how I read what you say) then in another place you say that their voices should be heard (which I read that they should be in an advisory position).

The former will not happen but the latter is happening.

Again, women are in advisory positions on the Diocesean level as well as at the Vatican. We just do not hear of it as these women are faithful Catholics and do not see the need to run around proclaiming this fact.

On a further note, I would love for you to tell Mother Angelica that she has no decision making power in the Church. She stated the only National Catholic Television Network in the USA. She started two religious orders, one for women and one for men.

How about the parochial school system, which was the first private school system in America, which was started by a nun (a Saint as a matter of fact).

How about St Teresa of Avila who not only started a big reform movement within the Carmelite Order but is also a Doctor of the Church?

 

[Kendy]

Well, it doesn’t suprise me that women find ways to use their gifts despite the resistance of men. Women have been doing that all over the world for centuries .

Oh, where are my liberal catholic friends when I need them. Hehe .

Kendy

ByzCath:

Where I see the contradiction is that in one place you say they should be decision makers (at least that is how I read what you say) then in another place you say that their voices should be heard (which I read that they should be in an advisory position).

The former will not happen but the latter is happening.

Again, women are in advisory positions on the Diocesean level as well as at the Vatican. We just do not hear of it as these women are faithful Catholics and do not see the need to run around proclaiming this fact.

On a further note, I would love for you to tell Mother Angelica that she has no decision making power in the Church. She stated the only National Catholic Television Network in the USA. She started two religious orders, one for women and one for men.

How about the parochial school system, which was the first private school system in America, which was started by a nun (a Saint as a matter of fact).

How about St Teresa of Avila who not only started a big reform movement within the Carmelite Order but is also a Doctor of the Church?

 

[Kendy]

Now, this is logic I can sink my teeth into

Kendy

BlindSheep:

Simple - God uses men for the leadership of His Church to show that the Holy Spirit must be responsible for anything good they do, rather than allowing the credit to go to human beings!
Or maybe it’s to make up for giving them such a peripheral role in reproduction? A shorter life span? Or the fact that the only perfect human creature was female?

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Kendy:

Well, it might be true that many things in the church are done by women, but that’s true of most if not all Christian churches. Woman make more up than 60% of the average church membership and an even greater percentage of the volunteers, which makes the fact that they can’t be ordained even more perplexing.

Anyway, I am not trying to make men and woman interchangeable, but I have a hard time seeing how the priesthood requires masculine skills. Plus, it’s not just about sacraments; it’s about decision making. Given the structure of the catholic church, it seems to be that when there are crucial matters being discussed outside of a parish, there are no women voices present.

Kendy

This statement, highlighted in red suggests to me that you have not had an opportunity to read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, written by Pope John Paul II, and the related Responsum ad Dubium (a clarification), written by the former Cardinal Ratzinger back in 1994 and 1995 respectively. The question is, how much time have you spent reflecting on why the Church’s position is what it is? This is a question I posed to a relative who has a PhD in sociology who took the same line as you did, but she was a lapsed Catholic. I suggested with all her schooling she should know better than to attack a position without first thoroughly studying that position. I would invite you to do the same and see where it leads. But, as I told her, you must also pray for the gift of understanding as well. It must be studied with a humble and open mind.

Anyone who is to study the subject with any seriousness, would start with the two documents I provided in the links above, then dissect any particular part of it to understand it better, in further discussion.

The Church has really never stated that it requires some kind of masculine skills. I wouldn’t even want to explain it here as it would take away from the fine job done by Pope John Paul II when he made a good effort to help Catholics understand the Church’s position.

A few comments above and beyond what JPII had to say though…

Some will argue that Jesus was merely being politically correct for his time in selecting only Men in his day. They claim that if he were here today, he would have chosen women, as well. This borders on heretical blasphemy if it is not outrightly so and here is why: God cannot be compelled to do anything because the act of being compelled suggests an imperfection. God would not be exercising perfect free will if he were compelled. Since God cannot be imperfect, He cannot be compelled, especially by imperfect beings such as ourselves.

Furthermore, since Jesus was God and because God is all knowing - that is, he knows all that happened in the past, all that happens as I write this, and all that will happen in the future - he could foresee the disquiet caused as a result of his only selecting Men at the time. If He had wanted women, He could easily have avoided the disquiet by selecting them as apostles back then, but He did not. Not his mother, not Mary Magdalen or any other prominent females of scripture. He broke the “PC” rules more than once, performing miracles on the Sabbath, for example, sitting to eat with a tax collector, and by simply being born into poverty. What would it have been to choose females to be among the apostles in his day?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Kendy:

Does anybody have a difficult time accepting the church’s teaching on the role of women in the church?

Kendy

Nope. Simple answer to a simple question. I am a father of three daughters and regarding female political rights, I’d probably be considered a liberal in most quarters. I don’t think there should be any legal barriers that deny women the opportunity to pursue dreams available to men. But the Church is not a democracy or congregational in hierarchy. The Head of the Church is Jesus Christ to whom He has delegated temporal leadership to His Vicar. I am called to submit and obey Jesus Christ and His legitimate temporal authorities in communion with the Pope.

A couple of misperceptions you have.

1. Women do serve in Church Leadership positions such as on Parish Pastoral Councils (even as President), serve as Diocesan Chancellors (highest lay position in a diocese), serve as Catholic University Presidents (and other roles), serve as Catholic Hospital Presidents, and even as President of EWTN.
2. Women are Doctors of the Church.
3. The Greatest Disciple and our Great Intercessor is a woman (Mary, Mother of God)
4. Women have been charged w/ primarily prayer and temporal ministerial leadership (ala educating, health care, social work) in the Church.

I think the issue is that you somehow see the callings available to women as inferior to the calling of some men to the Priesthood. I think your statement below asserts that women are contributing despite the protests of men.

From Kendy: “Well, it doesn’t suprise me that women find ways to use their gifts despite the resistance of men. Women have been doing that all over the world for centuries.”

I don’t see it that way and neither does the Church. We are called by name by God. Whether one is called to the Priesthood, religious life as a brother or sister, married life or the single life, all are calls to holiness and none inferior to the other. Each of these calls are calls to die to ourself. And once we do that, we no longer are concerned about whether another’s call is more prestigious, influential, or substantial in the eyes of others. We understand that our call is our personal call to holiness and we are to accept it joyfully and without reservation. As soon as we compare our call to anothers, we aren’t dying to ourself but promoting an agenda that we believe supercedes God’s agenda.

Our diocese has a cloistered convent where 24 or so women do nothing but perpetually pray before the Blessed Sacrament. The focus of their prayers are our Bishop and Priests to assist them discern the wishes of the Holy Spirit in the performance of their responsibilities. I’m not sure if these women aren’t more important to what is happening in our diocese than all the Priests in our diocese.

 

[scylla]

My local parish is run by a woman, she is a nun who makes the final decisions and runs the Church here in my town.

Except we really don’t see these positions as positions of power they are more positions of service. Most people follow their call in the Church to serve, not to lead. I think the problems start when people think of themselves as leaders instead of servants.

I think the most fitting title of the Pope is servant of the servants of God.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servus_Servorum_Dei

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Kendy]

Thanks everyone for your thoughful responses, but in my general spirit of resignation. All I have to is “Okay! Fine! Whatever!”

 

[Sherlock]

Kendy:

Does anybody have a difficult time accepting the church’s teaching on the role of women in the church?

Kendy

None whatsoever.
Have you studied the “Theology of the Body”? It gives food for thought on just about everything, and yes, it even sheds light on the reasons for the all-male priesthood.

 

[scylla]

Kendy:

Thanks everyone for your thoughful responses, but in my general spirit of resignation. All I have to is “Okay! Fine! Whatever!”

God Bless you Kendy, you brought a smile to my face, even though it is probably not your intention.

May you have a nice New Year’s week.

Scylla

 

[Kendy]

You’re welcome.

scylla:

God Bless you Kendy, you brought a smile to my face, even though it is probably not your intention.

May you have a nice New Year’s week.

Scylla

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Kendy:

Thanks everyone for your thoughful responses, but in my general spirit of resignation. All I have to is “Okay! Fine! Whatever!”

Kendy, I do wish you would explore the Church’s reasons for these things rather than simply looking at it as a bad thing (or so it comes across).

I was indifferent to women in the priesthood until I spent some time studying it. Now I get it and I am perfectly fine with it.

Are you a female who was hoping to be a priest? Or, do you feel it is difficult to work with priests because they are men (the way some women only like going to female doctors?).

Much of Christ’s life taught us humility (not humiliation). That is, humble acceptance of things. This too is a cross at times. It’s ok to feel disappointed, but at least take the time to understand the Church’s position and pray on it.

All baptized Catholics are called to this. It’s not enough to sit back and disagree with something if you are now baptized. We are called to work at understanding those things which are difficult to accept.

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, to which I linked, requires definitive assent. This means that if you can’t assent to it, in heart, mind and word, then you may be having problems grasping Papal authority. This would not be uncommon for someone newer to the Church, especially in light of weak catechesis, RCIA, etc. Many cradle Catholics do not understand that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an infallible document, which requires definitibe assent because it is now a part of the deposit of faith.

Can you at least read that short document, and the responsum ad dubium, then discuss the individual points you still struggle with?

 

[Kendy]

Lux_et_veritas:

Kendy, I do wish you would explore the Church’s reasons for these things rather than simply looking at it as a bad thing (or so it comes across).

I was indifferent to women in the priesthood until I spent some time studying it. Now I get it and I am perfectly fine with it.

Are you a female who was hoping to be a priest? Or, do you feel it is difficult to work with priests because they are men (the way some women only like going to female doctors?).

Much of Christ’s life taught us humility (not humiliation). That is, humble acceptance of things. This too is a cross at times. It’s ok to feel disappointed, but at least take the time to understand the Church’s position and pray on it.

All baptized Catholics are called to this. It’s not enough to sit back and disagree with something if you are now baptized. We are called to work at understanding those things which are difficult to accept.

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, to which I linked, requires definitive assent. This means that if you can’t assent to it, in heart, mind and word, then you may be having problems grasping Papal authority. This would not be uncommon for someone newer to the Church, especially in light of weak catechesis, RCIA, etc. Many cradle Catholics do not understand that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an infallible document, which requires definitibe assent because it is now a part of the deposit of faith.

Can you at least read that short document, and the responsum ad dubium, then discuss the individual points you still struggle with?

I am uncomfortable with an all-male priest for the same reason I would be uncomfortable with a United States senate that excludes women. I don’t want to become a priest or a senator, I am very comfortable with men, but I am wary of institution that excludes women from positions that they are capable of fulfilling simply because they are women. I am wary of a society or an institution that would keep women from positions of authority. Given the history of female exclusion in all societies (we have had the right to vote for less than 100 years in the West), and the persistence of female oppression around the world (unequal pay, abortion of girls, clitorial circumcision, honor killings, this is list can go on forever), I think I just have a HEALTHY suspicion of patriarchal institutions.

However, I have no intention on doing anything about my uncomfortable feelings. That’s what I mean by “Okay! Fine! Whatever!” Does “assenting” to the church’s teachings mean I have to like it? What if I just promise not to actively dissent? Will that be good enough?

Also, I went to the links you gave me and downloaded them on my home computer this morning. I will read them tonight.

Kendy

 

[rwoehmke]

For what its worth most of us men don’t get to make decisions in the church either. I suspect most deacons are in the same boat. No skin off my nose. Lets me be critical without being accused of being sexist.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Kendy:

I am wary of institution that excludes women from positions that they are capable of fulfilling simply because they are women…
…However, I have no intention on doing anything about my uncomfortable feelings. That’s what I mean by “Okay! Fine! Whatever!” Does “assenting” to the church’s teachings mean I have to like it? What if I just promise not to actively dissent? Will that be good enough?

I think it is a great expression of humility to accept teachings you don’t yet understand or like. I hope that you will someday learn the theology behind it and understand, but until such time (if it ever comes) not actively dissenting is good enough for me. I am also uncomfortable if women are excluded from positions they are capable of fulfilling, which leads to the question: are women capable of being fathers?

 

[Kendy]

Well, it depends on how you see fatherhood? I am not sure what you mean. First, how are priest fathers? Second, if you think of traditional things that you associate with fatherhood, like provider or disciplinarian, I think women are capable of doing these things.

I think single motherhood should be avoided if at all possible. Raising children is difficult work and it’s better to do it as a team. However, women are capable to doing the things that are traditional associated with fatherhood quite well and in fact, that’s exactly what many of them them do.

Kendy

gardenswithkids:

I think it is a great expression of humility to accept teachings you don’t yet understand or like. I hope that you will someday learn the theology behind it and understand, but until such time (if it ever comes) not actively dissenting is good enough for me. I am also uncomfortable if women are excluded from positions they are capable of fulfilling, which leads to the question: are women capable of being fathers?

 

[Sherlock]

Kendy:

I am uncomfortable with an all-male priest for the same reason I would be uncomfortable with a United States senate that excludes women. I don’t want to become a priest or a senator, I am very comfortable with men, but I am wary of institution that excludes women from positions that they are capable of fulfilling simply because they are women.

How do you account for the fact, then, that Jesus chose only men? I’m not trying to goad you: I think I know how you’re going to respond (frankly, this is territory that the Church has covered before and the arguments aren’t new), but I would rather have you state your reasons and deal with them instead of making assumptions.

Kendy:

I am wary of a society or an institution that would keep women from positions of authority. Given the history of female exclusion in all societies (we have had the right to vote for less than 100 years in the West), and the persistence of female oppression around the world (unequal pay, abortion of girls, clitorial circumcision, honor killings, this is list can go on forever), I think I just have a HEALTHY suspicion of patriarchal institutions.

I’m not sure about your history: the concept of voting for one’s representatives is still fairly new concept in practice (and yes, I’m aware of the Greek and Roman models). For centuries, women may not have had the vote, but since no one had the vote, one can hardly say they were discriminated against. Also, Christianity IS a “patriarchy”. Personally, I don’t have a problem with the Christian model of patriarchy. OK, here’s where I repeat myself for the gazillioneth time: study the “Theology of the Body”. Also, the existence of awful, repressive forms of “patriarchy” does not invalidate the legitimate expression of it, the Christian model. (much as the existence of repressive governments does not delegitimize the worthiness of all governments).

Kendy:

However, I have no intention on doing anything about my uncomfortable feelings. That’s what I mean by “Okay! Fine! Whatever!” Does “assenting” to the church’s teachings mean I have to like it? What if I just promise not to actively dissent? Will that be good enough?

It’s “good enough” for now, but for your peace of mind you ought to study why it is that the Church teaches what she teaches. You might surprise yourself. Honestly (and I mean honestly), there were a number of areas that I questioned during my return to the Church. When I looked into them further and found out the “whys” behind the Church’s teaching, I found myself in agreement, every single time. I would not have dreamed that that would happen, but it did. The end result of all of that searching was a deeper, more profound love for the Church as the guardian of truth (and not the “inventor” of her own subjective “truth”, as I had glibly assumed when I was away from her.)

 

[Kendy]

Sherlock:

How do you account for the fact, then, that Jesus chose only men? I’m not trying to goad you: I think I know how you’re going to respond (frankly, this is territory that the Church has covered before and the arguments aren’t new), but I would rather have you state your reasons and deal with them instead of making assumptions…

You know, I bet you don’t how I am going to respond Sherlock. I am very upset that Jesus only chose men to His apostles. I told Him that last night in my prayers, and I have told Him that before. I think that precedent has certainly been used and abused in And outside of the church to diminish the value of women, and in my very tearful prayers, I have told Him that as well.

Sherlock:

I’m not sure about your history: the concept of voting for one’s representatives is still fairly new concept in practice (and yes, I’m aware of the Greek and Roman models). For centuries, women may not have had the vote, but since no one had the vote, one can hardly say they were discriminated against. Also, Christianity IS a “patriarchy”. Personally, I don’t have a problem with the Christian model of patriarchy. OK, here’s where I repeat myself for the gazillioneth time: study the “Theology of the Body”. Also, the existence of awful, repressive forms of “patriarchy” does not invalidate the legitimate expression of it, the Christian model. (much as the existence of repressive governments does not delegitimize the worthiness of all governments). …

You know Sherlock, you are consistently insulting about how much I do or don’t about history. I am well-aware that most people did not have the right to vote for most of human history. That doesn’t change the fact that the minority who could vote were men or the minoeity who exercised political authority were men (Yes, I am aware of Queen Elizabeth and the like), and even after adult men were given the right to vote, it was kept from women. And women suffrage is just one of the **gazillian ** examples in which women have been excluded and repressed. And speaking of things happening in gazillians, you did not tell me to read “Theology of the Body” a gazillian time, you only said it once before. And since that was this morning, guess what, I HAVEN’T GOTTEN TO IT!!

Sherlock:

It’s “good enough” for now, but for your peace of mind you ought to study why it is that the Church teaches what she teaches. You might surprise yourself. Honestly (and I mean honestly), there were a number of areas that I questioned during my return to the Church. When I looked into them further and found out the “whys” behind the Church’s teaching, I found myself in agreement, every single time. I would not have dreamed that that would happen, but it did. The end result of all of that searching was a deeper, more profound love for the Church as the guardian of truth (and not the “inventor” of her own subjective “truth”, as I had glibly assumed when I was away from her.)

I intend to study why why the church teaches what it teaches.

Kendy

 

[gardenswithkids]

Kendy wrote: Well, it depends on how you see fatherhood? I am not sure what you mean. First, how are priest fathers? Second, if you think of traditional things that you associate with fatherhood, like provider or disciplinarian, I think women are capable of doing these things.

While women can take on the role of provider or disciplinarian, women’s bodies can not father a child. In another thread on women you posted last week, the document Mulieris Dignitatem. was brought up. It is a wonderful document that I would highly recommend reading. For me, it spoke to my very being as to who God created me to be. One of the things this document speaks of “spiritual motherhood”.

Men, on the other hand, can be “spiritual fathers”. That is what our priests are suppose to be for us. I know there must be a good resource out there that someone can direct you to learn more on this, but nothing comes to my mind right now.

So much of our society pits men against women or in contrast acts as if men and women are the same. (Often these contrasting messages come from the same source.) While we are all made in the image and likeness of God, there is some fundamental difference between the nature of men and women. I’m now starting to tread on territory where I’m not as well versed as I should be on Church documents regarding this stuff. But I once again highly recommend Mulieris Dignitatem for a better view of the role for women in the Church.

 

[Kendy]

If I recall, I not only read it, but I posted a follow-up question about a passage from the document. (I am starting to feel like you guys think I just don’t read ).

Anyway, I am not convinced that spiritual motherhood excludes have decision making authority.

Kendy

gardenswithkids:

Kendy wrote: Well, it depends on how you see fatherhood? I am not sure what you mean. First, how are priest fathers? Second, if you think of traditional things that you associate with fatherhood, like provider or disciplinarian, I think women are capable of doing these things.

While women can take on the role of provider or disciplinarian, women’s bodies can not father a child. In another thread on women you posted last week, the document Mulieris Dignitatem. was brought up. It is a wonderful document that I would highly recommend reading. For me, it spoke to my very being as to who God created me to be. One of the things this document speaks of “spiritual motherhood”.

Men, on the other hand, can be “spiritual fathers”. That is what our priests are suppose to be for us. I know there must be a good resource out there that someone can direct you to learn more on this, but nothing comes to my mind right now.

So much of our society pits men against women or in contrast acts as if men and women are the same. (Often these contrasting messages come from the same source.) While we are all made in the image and likeness of God, there is some fundamental difference between the nature of men and women. I’m now starting to tread on territory where I’m not as well versed as I should be on Church documents regarding this stuff. But I once again highly recommend Mulieris Dignitatem for a better view of the role for women in the Church.

 

[Sherlock]

Kendy:

You know, I bet you don’t how I am going to respond Sherlock. I am very upset that Jesus only chose men to His apostles. I told Him that last night in my prayers, and I have told Him that before. I think that precedent has certainly been used and abused in And outside of the church to diminish the value of women, and in my very tearful prayers, I have told Him that as well.

I’m sorry you feel that way. It can be frustrating accepting God’s ways. Personally, my frustration is with the commandment to “honor thy father and mother”—that has been difficult for me at times.

Kendy:

You know Sherlock, you are consistently insulting about how much I do or don’t about history. I am well-aware that most people did not have the right to vote for most of human history. That doesn’t change the fact that the minority who could vote were men or the minoeity who exercised political authority were men (Yes, I am aware of Queen Elizabeth and the like), and even after adult men were given the right to vote, it was kept from women. And women suffrage is just one of the **gazillian ** examples in which women have been excluded and repressed.

Mea culpa----I’m really sorry, Kendy. I wasn’t trying to be offensive–perhaps it comes naturally to me. I do tend to be quite literal, and if someone writes something that isn’t literally accurate, my tendency is to jump on it (which, I’ll freely admit, is NOT a good thing). Please accept my apologies. But to be honest, I’m not sure what historical repression by men has to do with this subject—again, what matters is what Christianity teaches about the dignity of men and women. That people don’t always practice it or misunderstand it does not invalidate the Christian model.

Kendy:

And speaking of things happening in gazillians, you did not tell me to read “Theology of the Body” a gazillian time, you only said it once before. And since that was this morning, guess what, I HAVEN’T GOTTEN TO IT!!

Wow—you’ve only gotten the TOB recommendation from me ONCE?! How have you managed to escape me for so long?! It seems like I’m always pushing it…well, obviously I’ve done so in threads that you haven’t visited.