Women in the Priesthood

[Roy5]

As** an inquiring Protestant** who always has been very interested in learning Christian history and following the contemporary Catholic Church, after reading these postings I have concluded what my major stumbling block is when it comes to Catholicism. It demands conformity, complete obedience to the Church, apparently with little room for creative thinking or serious dissent. When someone expresses a contrary view s/he comes under heavy fire for being heretical, rebellious, egotistical, ill-informed, and/or some other major shortcoming.

  This may sound harsh, but it brings to mind political systems like fascism and communism, where the government also has demanded full fidelity. I was thinking of that today as we remember the 20th anniversary of the massacre at Taenanmen Square in China, where millions of Christians, Catholics and Protestants both, have suffered for their faith. 

   I confess that I treasure the freedom to think 'outside the box' - free to question, if you will,  When posters do this here they usually catch hell (figuratively speaking, of course). My own view is that God gave us a brain to use, and I enjoy exploring different theological systems without worrying whether or not I am not sufficiently in line with traditional teaching. I believe that none of us has a monopoly on spiritual truth, and that we need not conform to creeds and doctrines written centuries ago, before we had a decent telescope or any microscope. When one reads the Church Fathers, for example, we find considerable wisdom but also many opinions and observations that sound dated and even bizarre in today's world.  

  "Think and let think" - and I try my best to respect those who believe that we don't need to think so much as to submit to divine revelation. No, I don't go with 'sola scriptura' either. The Bible, tradition, and reason all have as place, as well as the excitement and adventure of creative thinking.  None of us really has a handle on this magnificent and mysterious world. Our spiritual ancestors innocently believed that our earth was the center of the universe before Catholics like Copernicus and Galileo had the courage to risk the church's wrath and argue otherwise. Copernicus, of course, did not dare reveal his findings until his death bed, and not long ago the Vatican - praise God - finally recanted its harsh treatment of Galileo.

 

[RobNY]

When the Roman Catholic theologians agree that it is, then it will be so. But you have not answered why so many Roman Catholic theologians do not agree with you.

This isn’t an answer to the question I was asking. I’m asking what type of confirmation is needed for “manifest evidence?” A papal document? A conciliar document? And if not merely a type of document, what sort of declaration or wording would be necessary for you to receive it as manifest evidence?

It is a distinct (but not unrelated) question when it comes to agreement.

How is a Catholic supposed to understand the writings of St. Paul? Are they theological and carved in stone, or can we disregard them? For example, 1Cor 11:3:“But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, 1 and God is the head of Christ.”
Does the Catholic Church really teach today that the man must be the head of a woman? I don;t think so. I think that with the discarding of the requirement that women wear headcovering, the Church no longer teaches this theological truth? Or does it?

You make two claims here. One is in regard to an anthropological/theological claim about the relation of a man to a woman. We’d have to investigate what the Church teaches to see whether it contradicts Paul.

But when it comes to headcovering, this is clearly an apostolic tradition in the sense of a discipline or rule of conduct. It can and has been abrogated, just as disciplines like priestly celibacy could be abrogated. This is hardly a strong case against the Church.

Are you familiar with the terms “hermeneutic of continuity” and “hermeneutic of discontinuity” and what they mean? Are you familiar with the ‘theology of dissent?’ This could be a fruitful discussion for us to have.

God bless

-Rob

 

[RobNY]

As** an inquiring Protestant** who always has been very interested in learning Christian history and following the contemporary Catholic Church, after reading these postings I have concluded what my major stumbling block is when it comes to Catholicism. It demands conformity, complete obedience to the Church, apparently with little room for creative thinking or serious dissent. When someone expresses a contrary view s/he comes under heavy fire for being heretical, rebellious, egotistical, ill-informed, and/or some other major shortcoming.

  This may sound harsh, but it brings to mind political systems like fascism and communism, where the government also has demanded full fidelity. I was thinking of that today as we remember the 20th anniversary of the massacre at Taenanmen Square in China, where millions of Christians, Catholics and Protestants both, have suffered for their faith. 

   I confess that I treasure the freedom to think 'outside the box' - free to question, if you will,  When posters do this here they usually catch hell (figuratively speaking, of course). My own view is that God gave us a brain to use, and I enjoy exploring different theological systems without worrying whether or not I am not sufficiently in line with traditional teaching. I believe that none of us has a monopoly on spiritual truth, and that we need not conform to creeds and doctrines written centuries ago, before we had a decent telescope or any microscope. When one reads the Church Fathers, for example, we find considerable wisdom but also many opinions and observations that sound dated and even bizarre in today's world.  

  "Think and let think" - and I try my best to respect those who believe that we don't need to think so much as to submit to divine revelation. No, I don't go with 'sola scriptura' either. The Bible, tradition, and reason all have as place, as well as the excitement and adventure of creative thinking.  None of us really has a handle on this magnificent and mysterious world. Our spiritual ancestors innocently believed that our earth was the center of the universe before Catholics like Copernicus and Galileo had the courage to risk the church's wrath and argue otherwise. Copernicus, of course, did not dare reveal his findings until his death bed, and not long ago the Vatican - praise God - finally recanted its harsh treatment of Galileo.

There is, in any truly Christian church, a place where one must ‘conform’ or be obedient. Within the apostolic Churches, it certainly exists on the level of conciliar documents, as well as in the Scriptures, but in the Scriptures in the Protestant churches as well.

Truth is the bedrock, and whatever the truth is cannot be gainsaid.

This doesn’t mean we don’t have freedom to understand the truth as it is proposed to us. Often the hardest thing is to understand or to formulate theology explaining the “givens” of Christianity.

And there is a lot of freedom within the Christian tradition, especially in the Catholic tradition where there are and have been many rival theological traditions. I am mostly familiar with the Dominican intellectual tradition, so the idea that dogma stifles robust theology really doesn’t fly for me.

There is a lot of room for creativity, but demanding room for creativity outside of the set parameters of what is given is not asking for creativity, but chaos and anarchy. The givens we have in theology are the guideposts on which we built a firm theology. There is no sense in looking for a creativity which is not grounded in awe and reverence for truth. Is it any wonder that the Dominicans have, then, veritas as one of their mottos? Truth is often derided these days for being intolerant, because those of us who claim to have truth seem to be denying those who differ from us. But every Christian must believe that the Truth is given to us in revelation. A firm adherence to and reverence for truth, I think, are the necessary preconditions for truly vigorous theology, and not something that stifle it…

God bless,
Rob

 

[Just_Lurking]

When someone expresses a contrary view s/he comes under heavy fire for being heretical, rebellious, egotistical, ill-informed, and/or some other major shortcoming.

You should be aware that this is a characteristic of this particular website, and not of the Catholic Church in general. In the real-world Catholic Church, Hans Kung is still a Catholic priest in good standing who has shared a private dinner with Pope Benedict. At catholic.com (i.e., here), he is a heretic who has excommunicated himself from the Catholic Church.

 

[CarlaOLS]

You should be aware that this is a characteristic of this particular website, and not of the Catholic Church in general. In the real-world Catholic Church, Hans Kung is still a Catholic priest in good standing who has shared a private dinner with Pope Benedict. At catholic.com (i.e., here), he is a heretic who has excommunicated himself from the Catholic Church.

Like to be a fly on the wall at that dinner.

I’d bet the Pope was being pastoral reaching out to guide Kung in his errors.

 

[CarlaOLS]

What makes someone a Catholic Theologian?
What teaching authority can such a person have?

For instance:

New York Times, March 23, 2007

Bishops Denounce Writings of a Catholic Theologian

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

In a rare step, Roman Catholic bishops in the United States have declared as “false teaching” two pamphlets by a Catholic theologian who argues that abortion, contraception and same-sex marriage are morally permissible under Catholic doctrine.

The theologian, Daniel C. Maguire, teaches religious ethics at Marquette University, a Jesuit institution in Milwaukee. He is a 75-year-old former priest and a prolific writer, educated at the prestigious Gregorian University in Rome, who has been challenging Catholic teaching on sexuality for years.

How menaingful then is the question “why so many theologians disagree” with male-only priesthood?

 

[mikethekey]

The way I see it is, that in 1st Century Palestine, women were not considered the equals of men, rather inferior in many respects; more as the property of men. They were more or less in the level with slaves. (i.e)-They could be divorced by their husbands, but they could not initiate divorce proceedings against them, etc.

Jesus was the exception—he regarded women highly, he had women followers and supporters, some of who were financially well off and supported his ministry.

The Church, a product of the 1st and succeeding centuries, kept this 1st Century mindset against women. We find it in some of Paul’s epistles. In 21st Century Western society, where women are considered equal to men in every respect, this practice needs to be rethought, and changed. Some of the separated brethren Churches have moved in this direction. The Catholic and the Orthodox churches have remained staunchily conservative and have not moved an inch on this issue.

A separate but somewhat related issue is the rule of celibacy for priests, which has recently become frontline news with the story of the priest in Florida.

 

[Just_Lurking]

What makes someone a Catholic Theologian?

An ecclesiastical degree from a pontifical university. See here for details.

 

[bobzills]

Truth is the bedrock, and whatever the truth is cannot be gainsaid.

Let us take the truth that women must wear headcovering at prayer.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Te_Deum_Elizarovo_Guslitsa_8484.jpg
Is this truth bedrock?

 

[bobzills]

The Catholic and the Orthodox churches have remained staunchily conservative and have not moved an inch on this issue. .

Some people have observed that before Vatican II, women were not allowed in the sanctuary. After Vatican II, we see women at the altar, we see them distributing Holy Communion without headcovering, and we see them conducting the Holy Communion services at the altar in the absence of a priest. Some will argue that this is a first step which must be taken before allowing women priests.

 

[Roy5]

**ENCOURAGING **

Thanks to those - especially Just Lurking - for the assurance that there is room for dissent within Catholicism. I find that my Catholic friends certainly are tolerant, often in disagreement with a church policy (e. g., marriage of clergy or female ordination). I also find that most of them don't take some of the doctrines seriously, even such a central one as transubstantiation. I am a widower, and my close friend attends mass faithfully every Sunday. When we discuss religion she is about as liberal as I am, but she has been raised Catholic and is loyal to her parish - and I respect that. Of her children, sadly, only one attends church regularly, and that is at a Protestant church. Go figure....

 The Hans Kung matter concerned me when he was silenced. I read theologians of every tradition, including non-Christians, and believe that since none of us has a monopoly on the truth all serious and creative thinkers are worthy of a hearing, even when we disagree with them. There is a widespread perception among Protestants that there is not real freedom of expression within Catholicism, which is one reason I was a bit surprised and very pleased that Notre Dame invited President Obama. Perhaps I am too immersed in the tradition of free speech as a good thing. 

  Let me remind readers that millions upon millions of Protestants are not 'sola scriptura'. We are Protestants who do not take the Bible literally but seek to be loyal followers of Christ and abide my his teachings. There is, of course, debate about those teachings. I especially look to the Sermon on the Mount and such beautiful parables as the Good Samaritan. As to feeding 5000 with 5 small loaves and 2 little fishes - well, I'm not sure about that one. I also have trouble with sending demons into pigs who then charge over a cliff. Certainly I can't believe that God ordered the killing of all in Jericho, all the Amalekites, etc. How can one believe the unbelievable? That era was crammed full of such miracle stories and (in OT times) sagas of vicious ethnic cleansing, and most people were poorly educated and believed them. Our knowledge has expanded a thousand-fold (maybe a million-fold) since then, and today it's not easy to accept stories that fly in the face of modern science or common sense.   

   As for women priests, the theme of this thread: of course they should be ordained. And they will be in Catholicism eventually, possibly at first as Deacons and not as 'full priests'. The church must not be limited by cultural barriers that no longer apply to our contemporary society. Ancient societies treated women as secondary, usually inferior. This all has changed, much of it in my lifetime. The church must change, too.

 God bless the whole world - no exceptions. May Christians find unity in mutual respect, recognizing the right of individual believers explore and think freely.

 

[Worthy5]

It’s not a question of timidity but realism. The fact that two thousand years later there is opposition to the very idea of women priests demonstrates the deeply ingrained conservatism and prejudice of many people. No one has given a sound reason why women should not be priests. What are the qualities they lack? Why is it they cannot have a vocation to the priesthood? Many women have a vocation to the contemplative life. Many have been canonised as saints because they have been martyrs for their faith. So it cannot be because they are less holy than men or more prone to temptation or even because they are a source of temptation - as the myth of Eve suggests. In the Anglican Church there are many women priests who are more respected and more loved for their pastoral care than their male counterparts. So why not in the Catholic Church where there is a desperate shortage of priests? Nowhere in the New Testament is there any evidence that Jesus regarded women as unworthy of the priesthood.

It is absurd to argue that Jesus is God and if He wanted female priests He would have made female priests. God is omnipotent but He is not capricious. He knew women were regarded as inferior to men in Jewish society and to appoint women as His apostles would have confused and alienated the people unnecessarily. He conformed with the Law - whenever it did not conflict with His teaching - to show He came to fulfil the Law. It does not follow from the fact that He selected men as His first Apostles that He intended women to be excluded from the priesthood until the end of the world. His law of love is not bound by human notions of legal precedence…

Well that is a very interesting set of opinions that you have there. Of course, that is exactly what they are-your opinions. The largest point you miss, in addition to the explanations presented above on why the Church does not have female present esp the link provided, is that it is only the Church that has the authority on these matters. You and I just have opinions. You reference the Anglican church. Good, I hope that your membership there is successful for you. You do not need to attempt to tell the Catholic Church what it should or should not do- as an Anglican its not your business.

 

[RobNY]

Let us take the truth that women must wear headcovering at prayer.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Te_Deum_Elizarovo_Guslitsa_8484.jpg
Is this truth bedrock?

bobzills,

The truth of this, as I’ve explained, is that it is a disciplinary regulation. Is it apostolic? Surely. But it is merely disciplinary, and thus can-- and has-- been changed.

Do you understand? Anything you’d like me to explain?

God bless,

-Rob

 

[Worthy5]

**ENCOURAGING **

Thanks to those - especially Just Lurking - for the assurance that there is room for dissent within Catholicism. I find that my Catholic friends certainly are tolerant, often in disagreement with a church policy (e. g., marriage of clergy or female ordination). I also find that most of them don't take some of the doctrines seriously, even such a central one as transubstantiation. I am a widower, and my close friend attends mass faithfully every Sunday. When we discuss religion she is about as liberal as I am, but she has been raised Catholic and is loyal to her parish - and I respect that. Of her children, sadly, only one attends church regularly, and that is at a Protestant church. Go figure....

 The Hans Kung matter concerned me when he was silenced. I read theologians of every tradition, including non-Christians, and believe that since none of us has a monopoly on the truth all serious and creative thinkers are worthy of a hearing, even when we disagree with them. There is a widespread perception among Protestants that there is not real freedom of expression within Catholicism, which is one reason I was a bit surprised and very pleased that Notre Dame invited President Obama. Perhaps I am too immersed in the tradition of free speech as a good thing. 

  Let me remind readers that millions upon millions of Protestants are not 'sola scriptura'. We are Protestants who do not take the Bible literally but seek to be loyal followers of Christ and abide my his teachings. There is, of course, debate about those teachings. I especially look to the Sermon on the Mount and such beautiful parables as the Good Samaritan. As to feeding 5000 with 5 small loaves and 2 little fishes - well, I'm not sure about that one. I also have trouble with sending demons into pigs who then charge over a cliff. Certainly I can't believe that God ordered the killing of all in Jericho, all the Amalekites, etc. How can one believe the unbelievable? That era was crammed full of such miracle stories and (in OT times) sagas of vicious ethnic cleansing, and most people were poorly educated and believed them. Our knowledge has expanded a thousand-fold (maybe a million-fold) since then, and today it's not easy to accept stories that fly in the face of modern science or common sense.   

   As for women priests, the theme of this thread: of course they should be ordained. And they will be in Catholicism eventually, possibly at first as Deacons and not as 'full priests'. The church must not be limited by cultural barriers that no longer apply to our contemporary society. Ancient societies treated women as secondary, usually inferior. This all has changed, much of it in my lifetime. The church must change, too.

 God bless the whole world - no exceptions. May Christians find unity in mutual respect, recognizing the right of individual believers explore and think freely.

Well Royal5 that is very interesting. Of course, I am not sure why you or your friends call yourself Catholic. You and your friends can have all kinds of opinions, free country, but only the Church has the authority given to Her by Christ to define essential matters of faith and morals. You have friends that do not take seriously the doctrine of the real presence. I mean how much more Catholic can you get than that belief. Its called Apostolic succession. The point of being a catholic is recoginzing the teaching authority of the Church given to Her by Christ so we know Christ’s will. You do not what to believe it and follow it, fine free country, there are plenty of protestants and other christian denominations for your choosing. By the way watch that practice of interpreting the Bible. I assume you are reading the New Testiment in Greek and the Old Testament in Hebrew-as you know something always gets lost in those translations and of course language can have multiple meanings and context-of course that is why we have all those christian denominations each with there own take. And if you or your friends are and remain Catholic and a priests are allowed to get married I assume you will pay my share of the increased contributions the Church will have to ask for so the priest can have the proper salary to raise his family on. Now how much would that be? I guess you have an answer for that. If you are not Catholic than I am not certain what business any of this is of yours.

 

[bobzills]

bobzills,

The truth of this, as I’ve explained, is that it is a disciplinary regulation. Is it apostolic? Surely. But it is merely disciplinary, and thus can-- and has-- been changed.

Do you understand? Anything you’d like me to explain?

God bless,

-Rob

Let us take another bedrock truth:
It is permitted to use torture to extract confessions.
Heretics should be exterminated.

 

[Worthy5]

Well that is a very interesting set of opinions that you have there. Of course, that is exactly what they are-your opinions. The largest point you miss, in addition to the explanations presented above on why the Church does not have female present esp the link provided, is that it is only the Church that has the authority on these matters. You and I just have opinions. You reference the Anglican church. Good, I hope that your membership there is successful for you. You do not need to attempt to tell the Catholic Church what it should or should not do- as an Anglican its not your business.

As** an inquiring Protestant** who always has been very interested in learning Christian history and following the contemporary Catholic Church, after reading these postings I have concluded what my major stumbling block is when it comes to Catholicism. It demands conformity, complete obedience to the Church, apparently with little room for creative thinking or serious dissent. When someone expresses a contrary view s/he comes under heavy fire for being heretical, rebellious, egotistical, ill-informed, and/or some other major shortcoming.

  This may sound harsh, but it brings to mind political systems like fascism and communism, where the government also has demanded full fidelity. I was thinking of that today as we remember the 20th anniversary of the massacre at Taenanmen Square in China, where millions of Christians, Catholics and Protestants both, have suffered for their faith. 

   I confess that I treasure the freedom to think 'outside the box' - free to question, if you will,  When posters do this here they usually catch hell (figuratively speaking, of course). My own view is that God gave us a brain to use, and I enjoy exploring different theological systems without worrying whether or not I am not sufficiently in line with traditional teaching. I believe that none of us has a monopoly on spiritual truth, and that we need not conform to creeds and doctrines written centuries ago, before we had a decent telescope or any microscope. When one reads the Church Fathers, for example, we find considerable wisdom but also many opinions and observations that sound dated and even bizarre in today's world.  

  "Think and let think" - and I try my best to respect those who believe that we don't need to think so much as to submit to divine revelation. No, I don't go with 'sola scriptura' either. The Bible, tradition, and reason all have as place, as well as the excitement and adventure of creative thinking.  None of us really has a handle on this magnificent and mysterious world. Our spiritual ancestors innocently believed that our earth was the center of the universe before Catholics like Copernicus and Galileo had the courage to risk the church's wrath and argue otherwise. Copernicus, of course, did not dare reveal his findings until his death bed, and not long ago the Vatican - praise God - finally recanted its harsh treatment of Galileo.

Well Roy5 we thank you for your contribution. Your arguments about ‘free thinking’ sound good but somewhat misrepresent. Comparing the Church doctrine on theological
/metaphysical questions of faith as the same as the actions of autocratic political systems like communism and fascism that used physical force and threat of physical force to control all aspects of society is disingenuous and you know it. If you believe in " think let think" than mind your own busines which you are not doing by making such mispresentations. The Catholic belief is that in certain essential matters of faith and morals that Christ is revealing his will through the Church. The key is essential matters of faith and morals, thus not everything the Church does or its clergy does is seen as infalliable-in fact the Church rarely asserts such throughout it history.I am free to think and accept that. And the Church is not holding a gun to people’s head to believe it. I am also free to think about the Church’s dogma to see the rationale behind. Often I may not completely agree withit, but I accept it. As a lawyer I may disagree with a Court’s decision, but I respect and follow it because the Court has the authority. The same with the Church in essential matters of faith and morals. So I appreciate your weak attempt to characterize Catholics as people who " do not critically think". We do. But we also have a sense of respect and deference for authority, tradition and the belief that Christ guides His Church.

 

[RobNY]

Let us take another bedrock truth:
It is permitted to use torture to extract confessions.
Heretics should be exterminated.

bobzills,

Did the Church ever teach these irreformably? Teachings or positions which aren’t irreformable may, of course, be reformed.

And let me ask you a second question. Does the Church have the charism of infallibility?

God bless,

-Rob

 

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Roy5 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
When someone expresses a contrary view s/he comes under heavy fire for being heretical, rebellious, egotistical, ill-informed, and/or some other major shortcoming.
You should be aware that this is a characteristic of this particular website, and not of the Catholic Church in general.

Somebody reported me for calling a priest “anti-women” even though no priests have participated in this discussion! Whoever complained about me is either malicious or foolish. I wrote: “There are some anti-women-priests on this forum who do believe heretics deserve the death penalty.” In a discussion about women priests it should be obvious I meant anti**-**women-priests and not anti-women-priests, especially as it was in response to a recent post that Luther and Calvin were heretics who should have been burned at the stake.

 

[tonyrey]

And if you or your friends are and remain Catholic and priests are allowed to get married I assume you will pay my share of the increased contributions the Church will have to ask for so the priest can have the proper salary to raise his family on.

Regardless of whether the parish is left without a priest…

 

[bobzills]

bobzills,

Did the Church ever teach these irreformably? Teachings or positions which aren’t irreformable may, of course, be reformed.

And let me ask you a second question. Does the Church have the charism of infallibility?

God bless,

-Rob

Many Catholic theologians, lots and lots, say that the teaching against women priests is not infallible and can be reformed.