Women in the Priesthood

[mikew262]

Fiat Lumen:

Good intentions are not enough, but walking on solid grounds. If you proposed that married Deacons be ordained Priests, which will not happen for the time being, that would present a reasonable proposal. But the ordination of women in the Catholic Church is so out of context that goes beyond the scope of reason and does not even leave ground for discussion.

FIAT VOLUNTAS TUA

If you’ll reread what I said, I offered it as a possible solution. I’m not fully convinced it’s the right way to go in trying to reverse some negative trends in the Church. It would probably backfire because to many old-school Catholics would reject it. BTW, this thread deals with women in the priesthood, so it’s ok to discuss it.

Yes, allowing married priests is another solution, and probably a good one, although, like you say, it won’t happen for awhile.

 

[monina]

I’m not sure what the statistics are for Episcopal priesthood, which allows married clergy as well as women priests–

but I don’t think that they have seen an increase in vocations, or that allowing married men/women into the clergy has solved the priest shortage.

so, I doubt that allowing married clergy into the Catholic Church would solve our crisis/priest shortage.

 

[mikew262]

monina:

I’m not sure what the statistics are for Episcopal priesthood, which allows married clergy as well as women priests–

but I don’t think that they have seen an increase in vocations, or that allowing married men/women into the clergy has solved the priest shortage.

so, I doubt that allowing married clergy into the Catholic Church would solve our crisis/priest shortage.

I disagree. Although I don’t have any stats to back it up, I do think it would help ease the shortage.

 

[Fiat_Lumen]

mikew262:

If you’ll reread what I said, I offered it as a possible solution. I’m not fully convinced it’s the right way to go in trying to reverse some negative trends in the Church. It would probably backfire because to many old-school Catholics would reject it. BTW, this thread deals with women in the priesthood, so it’s ok to discuss it.

Yes, allowing married priests is another solution, and probably a good one, although, like you say, it won’t happen for awhile.

Perhaps I was not clear enough, I did not say “allowing married priests” or allowing Priests to marry, but to ordain married Deacons. Deacons can be ordained to the Priesthood after their wives have died.

FIAT VOLUNTAS TUA

 

[svoboda]

I recently saw a retired bishop (not Catholic), speak about feminism within his religion.

He said that before he had daughters he rather liked the setup of conquering the world all day and coming home to a wife who cooked his meals and washed his clothes.

But after he had daughers he said he realized he did not want that kind of a life for them, and he became a feminist.

He also said that the reason the Catholic Church does take his stance is that priests don’t have wives or daughers.

I think there is a lot to it. I think if women and married men were in the highest levels of Church authority making doctrine, the Church would be much more friendly toward women, toward married couples etc.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

There are quite a few problems I see in your post.

First: The assumption that the Catholic Church is somehow “anti woman”. It is not. I would recommend you read John Paul II’s “On the Dignity of Women”.

Second: The assumption that ANYBODY in the Church “makes doctrine”. Nobody MAKES doctrine. All revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle; there will be no further doctrine. Doctrine can be deepened or better understood, but never “Made” or “changed”. (Haven’t we been through this before? )

Third: Celibacy is a discipline. So while the church may quite legitimately decide to change a DISCIPLINE (the three Ds, we have been through THIS before too ) to allowe MARRIED men, the church has NO AUTHORITY TO ALLOW WOMEN PRIESTS. (See John Paul’s Ordinario Sacerdotalis, AND the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We’ve been through that. . .)

Fourth: The Church is friendly to women AND married couples. Remember, the CHURCH (unlike other denominations) does not allow divorce (that is VERY couple friendly, don’t you think?) nor does it allow birth control or abortion (and that is very WOMAN friendly).

Fifth: I’m a feminist–a feminist for life (a woman, at that). I’m not a feminist who feels that motherhood, or working inside the home, is somehow less valuable than working outside the home. I don’t feel that I have to deny my female gifts in order to conform to whatever “image” is popular. I don’t have to become “equal” to a man–I AM spiritually equal–but I am not THE SAME as a man. Neither of us is BETTER than the other, both are equally necessary as complements to each other, but we are NOT interchangeable.

Sixth: I hope this doesn’t come across in the wrong way–but can you tell me anything you LIKE about the Church’s teachings on faith and morals?

 

[svoboda]

Second: The assumption that ANYBODY in the Church “makes doctrine”. Nobody MAKES doctrine. All revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle; there will be no further doctrine. Doctrine can be deepened or better understood, but never “Made” or “changed”. (Haven’t we been through this before? )

I think this is just language. Did the early Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, no. It was not even defined until later. To use the language you prefer, the Church would benefit if women and married men contributed to future deeper (and infallible) understnading of doctrine.

Third: Celibacy is a discipline. So while the church may quite legitimately decide to change a DISCIPLINE (the three Ds, we have been through THIS before too ) to allowe MARRIED men, the church has NO AUTHORITY TO ALLOW WOMEN PRIESTS. (See John Paul’s Ordinario Sacerdotalis, AND the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We’ve been through that. . .)

But just as Boniface VIII’s statement about requiring submission to the Roman Pontiff to be saved, this too may later be understood on a deeper level.

Let me give you a hypothetical: “We always believed that the Church did not have the authority to ordain female priests, John Paul II said so himself. But now our understanding has deepened and we realize that it is really not the Church who has the authority, but the Holy Spirit who works through the Church, and we have discerned that it is the will of the Holy Spirit that women be ordained. He certainly has that authority.”

Fourth: The Church is friendly to women AND married couples. Remember, the CHURCH (unlike other denominations) does not allow divorce (that is VERY couple friendly, don’t you think?) nor does it allow birth control or abortion (and that is very WOMAN friendly).

I think this is a two-edged sword. Yes, no divorce may help women whose husbands feel like running out on them. But it does little to help women (or men) in abusive relationships. It does little for people who’ve been abandoned and are now condemned to be alone for life.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

We are having a go at it, aren’t we?

One: The Trinity has existed for eternity, even if it has not been understood for eternity. It is not our UNDERSTANDING which caused its existence, therefore, whether or not a given individual at a given point in time could explain it does not affect the FACT of the Trinity at all. And it again does not mean that somebody just “created” the Trinity at point B, and therefore any time BEFORE point B the Trinity did not exist.

Two: Your hypothetical can’t come about. VALID MATTER. The Spirit cannot guide us in ONE way for 2000 years and then suddenly “change His mind” and guide us in a completely different way. Why? Because GOD does not change. That is His nature. He is eternal. From the OT Jewish male priesthood to Jesus’s own comission of his male apostles to the 2000 year tradition of the Church, it has been understood that VALID MATTER decrees a male priesthood, just as VALID MATTER for the Eucharist requires wheat bread and grape wine, and will not change.

Three: Here I think I might know more than you firsthand. The Church does not insist that men (or women) remain in abusive relationships, and likewise recognizes that there can be innocent parties in divorce, and that a legal divorce can be forced on those innocent parties. A decree of nullity is possible for those instances where no sacramental marriage existed in the first place. Finally, a divorced person is free to receive the sacraments (including reconciliation and Eucharist) provided he or she does not attempt to marry another person (thus becoming an adulterer).

Unlike other churches, where divorce is a commonplace, at most given a shake of the head, but where remarriage in the church even multiple times is CELEBRATED, the Catholic Church recognizes the marriage bond as Christ gave it, is incredibly supportive of the sanctity of the marriage bond.

I guess we agree on the teachings regarding birth control and abortion–hey, that’s GOOD!

 

[svoboda]

Tantum ergo:

We are having a go at it, aren’t we?

One: The Trinity has existed for eternity, even if it has not been understood for eternity. It is not our UNDERSTANDING which caused its existence, therefore, whether or not a given individual at a given point in time could explain it does not affect the FACT of the Trinity at all. And it again does not mean that somebody just “created” the Trinity at point B, and therefore any time BEFORE point B the Trinity did not exist.

Okay, and maybe right now we don’t understand the whole business of whether or not women can be ordained. Maybe future Catholics will attain true undrestanding and ordain women.

Two: Your hypothetical can’t come about. VALID MATTER. The Spirit cannot guide us in ONE way for 2000 years and then suddenly “change His mind” and guide us in a completely different way. Why? Because GOD does not change. That is His nature. He is eternal. From the OT Jewish male priesthood to Jesus’s own comission of his male apostles to the 2000 year tradition of the Church, it has been understood that VALID MATTER decrees a male priesthood, just as VALID MATTER for the Eucharist requires wheat bread and grape wine, and will not change.

You don’t know how future Catholics will interpret these teachings, they might find a way to interpret it in such a way that women priests will not only be permitted, but preferable.

There are many things in OT that we no longer do, such as stoning, such as animal sacrifices, such as purification rituals, such as polygamy, such as slavery.

Maybe not ordaining women will disappear from Catholic history just like stoning disappeared from Jewish history.

I know good priests who think women will eventually be ordained. I think women will make better priests then men. From my experience women are more kind, more understanding, more charitable, more giving. Women are better at understanding human emotions and relationships, and a very important part of being a priest is helping people on a personal level/guiding them.

I think the Church would benefit a great deal if this way of being a priest was brought into the Church. With women in the hierarchy, I think the Church would become more human, more warm, reach out to people better. These things are all very important.

I think theology woudl benefit from the female perspective. If man is created in God’s nature “male and female he created them” then right now half of God’s nature is not being expressed in Church’s theology-making machine.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, I believe that you are wrong. Well intentioned, but wrong. Well meaning, but wrong. (Unfortunately, we cannot both be right, and I don’t believe in lying and saying that we COULD be. If I believe that I am right, then I must believe you are wrong, though, of course, I respect you as a person and mean no personal condemnation, for that is not mine to give).

I guess it comes down to a question of faith. I put my faith in God and in His Church, and in its teachings–eternal and unchanging, pure, true, and good…

I am not going to worry about what “may” happen. I know (through faith and reason) that God will not lead His church into error. Sadly, some of his PEOPLE might fall into error, even if others try to keep them from it.

Maybe I’ve planted a seed somewhere that will bring forth fruit. Heaven knows that I have not always understood as well as I do now, and THAT understanding, while I trust it is pleasing to God in its obedience AND love, is not perfect.

Naturally the spiritual health of my fellow Christians concerns me, but in the end I cannot force people into truth–they must accept it on their own.

 

[InnocentIII]

svoboda:

Okay, and maybe right now we don’t understand the whole business of whether or not women can be ordained. Maybe future Catholics will attain true undrestanding and ordain women.

This is known as let’s keep discussing the question until I get the answer I want. Also known as the EU Constitution ploy. No matter a majority rejects the Constitution. well just keep putting it till you vote our way.

You don’t know how future Catholics will interpret these teachings, they might find a way to interpret it in such a way that women priests will not only be permitted, but preferable.

Neither do you - on the other hand you have already decided that attaining true understanding means ordaining women. Hmm // you must let me know who you are getting your inside tips from?

I know good priests who think women will eventually be ordained.

I know such priests too. Doesn’t make them good. I also know many younger priests who firmly believe that it won’t happen. Are they bad priests? Most of the priests I know who spout these ideas are baby boomer has beens still muttering about the revolution they think is going to happen when it has passed them by.

I think women will make better priests then men. From my experience women are more kind, more understanding, more charitable, more giving. Women are better at understanding human emotions and relationships, and a very important part of being a priest is helping people on a personal level/guiding them.

Are you basing this on your experience with women priests or just women in general? I have seen a number of comments here and elsewhere from both men and women in denominations with women ministers or priests that reject this and indeed argue that women priests have had a major adverse impact on attendances. And I’m not even going to buy into the stereotyping above. Working in a field with many women I could make just as valid a list that included backstabbing, emotional blackmail, take criticism badly etc etc.

I think the Church would benefit a great deal if this way of being a priest was brought into the Church. With women in the hierarchy, I think the Church would become more human, more warm, reach out to people better. These things are all very important.

You obviously think men aren’t human as they can’t create a human Church only women can. You might also have considered rectitude, commitment to truth, faithfulness to God, all those things that the Church did to reach out to people over 2000 years. In fact your whole argument is just a string of assertions based around your personal preference for women, there is no rigour in it whatsoever.

I think theology woudl benefit from the female perspective. If man is created in God’s nature “male and female he created them” then right now half of God’s nature is not being expressed in Church’s theology-making machine.

Perhaps you think Catherine of Siena and Therese of Lisieux, both Doctors of the Church were really men in drag? And the Church does not make theology it studies it via sacred scripture and sacred tradition. By all means start your own faith based on your insights but spare us the claim that the Church needs to change to conform to your agenda.

 

[InnocentIII]

mikew262:

Well, they were at one time, part of the early christian movement. There are many references to support that. Not much else I can say.

All heretics were at one time part of the Church. It was their rejection of Church teaching that made them heretics. Gnostics were indeed early Christians and vigorously pushed thier agenda but they were definitievely rejected by the Church because their teachings were incompatible with the Christian faith. Sadly gnosticism has made something of a comeback these days and seems to have found a home in parts of the modern day Church.

 

[svoboda]

InnocentIII:

You obviously think men aren’t human as they can’t create a human Church only women can. You might also have considered rectitude, commitment to truth, faithfulness to God, all those things that the Church did to reach out to people over 2000 years. In fact your whole argument is just a string of assertions based around your personal preference for women, there is no rigour in it whatsoever.

By human I meant more empathetic, more sensitive to human needs, more understanding. It’s not that men don’t have these qualities, but from my experience women tend to have these qualities in greater degree.

I think men can be great priests, I’ve known many great male priests. I think women could also make great priests, and I think they would bring diversity to the priesthood. At the moment the Church is missing out on the female way of doing things. Having only male priests is like having only male parents. Children do better being raised by mothers and fathers, I think Catholics will be better guided spiritually by the combined efforts of men and women.

And perhaps nuns and other female spiritual guides perform this function to a degree, but for the most part people who do spiritual direction, hear confessions, advise couples, and ABOVE ALL speak out on doctrinal issues in a way that compels the whole Church to hear are male.

Priests are fathers, we need mothers too.

Perhaps you think Catherine of Siena and Therese of Lisieux, both Doctors of the Church were really men in drag? And the Church does not make theology it studies it via sacred scripture and sacred tradition. By all means start your own faith based on your insights but spare us the claim that the Church needs to change to conform to your agenda.

No, but women like that are few and far between. I think there would be more of them if they were allowed to be priests/bishops/cardinals/popes.

 

[InnocentIII]

maryalene:

Or it could just be that she was charged with storing it for the bishop for whatever reason. You are right though; people see what they want to see.

Actually there were female Abbesses who like their male counterparts had certain clerical functions within the confines of their abbey and as such were entitled to wear a mitre and special gloves. There is still in fact a category of of jurisdiction called a “Territorial Abbey” of which there are 11 worldwide. The Abbot of such Abbeys is regarded as being “bishop” within the Abbey, hence the mitre. Where the Abbey was one of nuns the Abbess had the same powers. Note however these were specifically episcopal powers. They were not ordained nor did they have priestly authority to perform the sacraments. This is just another furphy by the feminist theologians to try and back up their demand for a female priesthood.

On a slightly divergent note - I find the easiest way to trap these people is to point out their own inconsistency. They claim that society has advanced and that admitting women to the priesthood is a signe of societies maturity. Then they turn round and try and argue that the Church had women priests in the very beginning and they were written out. So are we going backward (to the so-called feminine early church) or going forward (to a more updated church). The reality is of course that they are only using any argument they can dredge up to support a purely humanistic agenda. And they will dialogue till they get the answer they want and then declare all further discussion “divisive”. So don’t buy into it and argue jsut look insufferably smug and say you don;t waste time on things that are settled - its divisive.

 

[InnocentIII]

svoboda:

By human I meant more empathetic, more sensitive to human needs, more understanding. It’s not that men don’t have these qualities, but from my experience women tend to have these qualities in greater degree.

No what you actually meant was that it would make the Church more feminine. There is a great deal of research out there that shows that having a father who attends is mass regularly is a greater predictor of a childs future adherence to the Church than having a mother as a regular attender. Modern feminism downplays men at all levels. It is not about equality it is about power. If you suggest men are better at certain things it is rejected as sexist yet feminists are always putting forward women as “better at empathy, compassion etc”. The 60’s generation bought into the whole world is about power relationships. Equality didn’t mean equality it meant overturning the existing power relationship and replacing it with a new one. The failure of the 60’s generation is now manifest for all to see in our current dysfunctional society but still they keep espousing the same tired cliches. It is interesting that the latest stats from Australia show that after 40 years of feminist propaganda and policies the number of women choosing full-time work in the 25-34 age group is down to 50% compared to the 35-44 age groups 70%. So much for feminism’s belef that it was all a nasty male plot to keep women at home.

 

[InnocentIII]

mikew262:

I disagree. Although I don’t have any stats to back it up, I do think it would help ease the shortage.

I can’t speak for ECUSA but I can speak of the Anglican Church of Australia. The recent statistical digest of religion in Australia shows the Anglican Church is in dire straits. Its attendance figure is much lower that the Catholic Church. The other mainstream protestants are even worse off than the Anglicans. But … they all have plenty of priests or ministers. These churches survive on their investments and government handouts for charitable works. I think this is a misleading argument. The priest crisis has been solved here in several very orthodox dioceses which have excellent vocations records. The real crisis in Australia is in the liberal dioceses which have not had any vocations for several years. If you are sitting in the dark at midday it is no use discussing new ways to make light, just go and open the shutters. The sun is still there. the problem with the priestly crisis argument is that it is used to support a pre-determined position i.e we need women priests. A better way would be to discuss why we have a crisis and what options would be best to resolve it. does anyone remember the “we must be relevant or we will lose the young” argument in the 70’s. Well we got relevant and still lost the young … so it wasn’t our relevance that was at fault. Define the problem, propose options, evaluate solutions instead of defining the solution, find a problem, reject options which is the way people seem to want to go about it today.

 

[Breton]

The 60’s generation bought into the whole world is about power relationships. Equality didn’t mean equality it meant overturning the existing power relationship and replacing it with a new one. The failure of the 60’s generation is now manifest for all to see in our current dysfunctional society but still they keep espousing the same tired cliches.

Dead on InnocentIII. The “grand” ideals of the boomer generation have our society drowning in legalized murder (abortion), pornography, STD’s, broken families, materialism, depression and declining faith. It has created churchs the same way it creates fast-food restaurants. But the tide is turning and we are witnessing the final gasps of dinosaurs the likes of James Carroll and Joan Chittister who will drag THEIR private, feminist agendas behind them to the end like a sack of dirty laundry.

The priest crisis has been solved here in several very orthodox dioceses which have excellent vocations records. The real crisis in Australia is in the liberal dioceses which have not had any vocations for several years. If you are sitting in the dark at midday it is no use discussing new ways to make light, just go and open the shutters.

This proves true here in North America as well. There is no shortage of qualified priests and seminarians in dioceses where religious vocations - male or female - are understood, honored and supported.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

svoboda:

…
And perhaps nuns and other female spiritual guides perform this function to a degree, but for the most part people who do spiritual direction, hear confessions, advise couples, and ABOVE ALL speak out on doctrinal issues in a way that compels the whole Church to hear are male. …

Above all. you say? No! Above all, the Priest stands, in persona Christi, when he offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and says the words “This Is My Body … This is My Blood.” And Fr. Murphy does not mean Fr. Murphy’s body and blood. (And that is not the only occasion for a priest to act in persona Christi.)

Although a priest (or deacon, or bishop) performs many ministerial functions, it is a serious misunderstanding of the priesthood to place these functions ahead of his acting, sacramentally, in persona Christi. The kind of “priesthood” that would admit women to the Sacrament of Holy Orders is simply unknown to the Catholic Church (as was a female “priest” to out Jewish ancestors in faith), and She can neither invent new, nor change existing, Sacraments.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Fiat_Lumen]

Mark & Marilyn:

The Conservatives allege (or imply):

1. The difference between men and women is absolute!
2. a.) Women simply have NO place in the clergy.
   In such a vital role in the Church, they have nothing to contribute. (not in the clergy, anyway)

2 b.) It may be that God made woman to be the servant of man.

1. Those women who feel they have a “calling,” or seriously believe that women have a right to become priests, are simply being mislead.

…But many progressives deny all of the above, and insist:

1. Men and women are essentially made of the same material, spirit, basic human nature, etc., but have differences determined by DNA and hormones, etc. This was not well understood in ancient times. Fact: women have souls, too.
2. In many modern, “progressive,” philosophies and policies, equal rights, and equal treatment under the law, are desirable.
   Our Lord treated women with more respect than was usually customary for rabbis and religious leaders (and most men) in ancient Palestine region.
3. There is no sound or convincing reason for excluding women from religion altogether, or from high respectable ranks, or from the priesthood. Our Lord has never been on record ordering women specifically out of any position of high responsibility.
   Women have made considerable contributions to the Church, religion and religious culture thoughout history.

DECLARATION ON THE QUESTION OF ADMISSION OF WOMEN TO THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD
October 15, 1976
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Paragraph 2.- The attitude of Christ.

Jesus Christ did not call any women to become part of the Twelve. If he acted in this way, it was not in order to conform to the customs of his time, for his attitude towards women was quite different from that of his millieu, and he deliberately and courageously broke with it.

For example, to the great astonishment of his own disciples Jesus converses publicly with the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:27); he takes no notice of the state of legal impurity of the woman who had suffered from hemorrhages (Mt 9:20); he allows a sinful woman to approach him in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Lk 7:37); and by pardoning the woman taken in adultery, he means to show that one must not be more severe towards the fault of a woman than towards that of a man (Jn 8:11). He does not hesitate to depart from the Mosaic Law in order to affirm the equality of the rights and duties of men and women with regard to the marriage bond (Mk 10:2; Mt 19:3).

In his itinerant ministry Jesus was accompanied not only by the Twelve but also by a group of women (Lk 8:2). Contrary to the Jewish mentality, which did not accord great value to the testimony of women, as Jewish law attests, it was nevertheless women who were the first to have the privilege of seeing the risen Lord, and it was they who were charged by Jesus to take the first paschal message to the Apostles themselves (Mt 28:7 ; Lk 24:9 ; Jn 20:11), in order to prepare the latter to become the official witnesses to the Resurrection.

It is true that these facts do not make the matter immediately obvious. This is no surprise, for the questions that the Word of God brings before us go beyond the obvious. In order to reach the the ultimate meaning of the mission of Jesus and the ultimate meaning of Scripture, a purely historical exegesis of the texts cannot suffice. But it must be recognised that we have here a number of convergent indications that make all the more remarkable that Jesus did not entrust the apostolic charge to women. Even his Mother, who was so closely associated with the mystery of her Son, and whose incomparable role is emphasized by the Gospels of Luke and John, was not invested with the apostolic ministry. This fact was to lead the Fathers to present her as an example of Christ’s will in this domain; as Pope Innocent III repeated later, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, ‘Although the Blessed Virgin Mary surpassed in dignity and in excellence all the Apostles, nevertheless it was not to her but to them that the Lord entrusted the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.’

 

[mikew262]

Breton:

This proves true here in North America as well. There is no shortage of qualified priests and seminarians in dioceses where religious vocations - male or female - are understood, honored and supported.

Not sure I agree with this. Stats pls?