Women lead in the Church, even as Catholics debate their role

[edwest2]

Glad to:

1. Women cannot be priests.
2. A woman cannot be a bishop.
3. A lot of priests are mysogenic.

Thanks.

1. Jesus Christ, as God, set up an all male system for the priesthood. He was not influenced by the way things were at the time He was here.
2. The same with answer 1.
3. I honestly believe that priests are following Church teaching as opposed to being (from the dictionary) “a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women”

Women can be nuns or be involved in other Church ministries. The priest acts In persona Christi which is Latin for ‘In the person of Christ.’ God, as Jesus Christ, chose men by His will.

Ed

 

[SWolf]

LOL, women have been in charge of massive endeavors, institutions and apostolates in the catholic church for centuries before the secular world let them vote or in some cases even own real estate.

Amazing how little people pay attention to reality.

The Church has historically been more progressive for women’s rights than about any other institution.

However, that doesn’t fit the modernist narrative.

 

[Tigg]

The usual suspects. The three mentioned groups have all been embroiled in controversy at one time or another and have worked against the Church. Pride and ambition and personal fulfillment are not attributes to be emulated in ecclesial matters.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

The issue is that the Church is too clerical and priests and bishops still have too much power. I think that if laymen and laywomen felt they had more skin in the game than there were be less calls for female ordination. Why for instance can a layman or laywoman or a female religious not head one of the Vatican departments? Even the CDF could be headed by a lay theologian. What confuses me greatly is Pope Francis’ insistence that the new department for the laity be headed by a cardinal. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

I also think that criticism of the Church isn’t allowed. Sister Donna Markham and Sister Carole Kane have clashed with the bishops in the past; Sister Kane famously criticized the bishops over Obamacare. It is my understanding that Catholic Charities is independent of the U.S. bishops, which is the only reason why she could be chosen. No matter how talented they are; laywomen and even laymen who are critical of the bishops aren’t invited to discuss their criticism. I’d like some more open debate in the Church and for the smartest people to be rewarded not just yes-men.

 

[ProVobis]

I also think that criticism of the Church isn’t allowed. Sister Donna Markham and Sister Carole Kane have clashed with the bishops in the past; Sister Kane famously criticized the bishops over Obamacare. It is my understanding that Catholic Charities is independent of the U.S. bishops, which is the only reason why she could be chosen. No matter how talented they are; laywomen and even laymen who are critical of the bishops aren’t invited to discuss their criticism. I’d like some more open debate in the Church and for the smartest people to be rewarded not just yes-men.

Are they clashing because they disapprove of their bishops or because they don’t like church policy?

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Are they clashing because they disapprove of their bishops or because they don’t like church policy?

Sr. Carole Kane disagreed with the U.S. bishops on Obamacare. This strikes me as a policy debate, not a situation of Faith and Morals.

I just think that there should be more disagreement in the Church. For instance, why is the Catholic Church’s idea of complementarity a settled fact? Why is only one interpretation of Vatican II allowed?

Also, it disturbs me that women promoted as the “token” ladies by the Vatican tend not to be willing to criticize the Church in anything. For instance, one would think that a career women like Helen Alvare would be uncomfortable with the rhetoric that comes out of the Pope’s mouth or the bishops’ mouths sometimes. But I guess Vatican appointments and speaking slots are more important.

 

[ProVobis]

Why is only one interpretation of Vatican II allowed?

What do you mean by that? I was under the impression the spirit of Vatican II has been followed for the most part. One interpretation (and the strict one, I presume) would be what Vatican II intended. Read the documents on the liturgy, for example. Very little of that has been followed, save for appointing liturgical commissions at each parish.

 

[Usige]

I just think that there should be more disagreement in the Church. For instance, why is the Catholic Church’s idea of complementarity a settled fact? Why is only one interpretation of Vatican II allowed?

Perhaps things are settled fact because Catholics are not protestants that believe truth is a matter of democratic vote or that floats on the river of popular opinion?

Complementarity seems to be pretty well established in Genesis. God created man and woman, Adam and Eve, to complement each other. Nothing in scripture or divine revelation even hints at anything else. The concept of gender (as distinct from biological sex) has only been popular for that last 40 - 50 years. There are no accounts of how 42 “gender identities” lay the foundation for salvation. That does not mean that people that deviate from the norm do not have a place in salvation, but rather that their path should not be a distorted reflection of what has God has revealed to us.

The Bishops are the successors of the apostles. It is to them, and them alone, that Christ entrusted to lead the Church. The laity are free to discuss with the Bishops concerns and present their thoughts, but when groups take it upon themselves to publicly contradict the Bishops they take on a mantle not bestowed upon them by Christ.

To do as you say and allow multiple versions of the truth; encouraging each person to freely follow their own interpretation of that truth; would result in a shattering of the universality of the Church. Christ established the Church through the succession of the apostles to lead mankind through the narrow gate; you seem to suggest using the wide gate, or perhaps no gate at all. That is in direct opposition to what Christ preached.

If that is not what you meant to imply then my apologies for misinterpreting it.

 

[edwest2]

The usual suspects. The three mentioned groups have all been embroiled in controversy at one time or another and have worked against the Church. Pride and ambition and personal fulfillment are not attributes to be emulated in ecclesial matters.

Nobody needs my or the Church’s permission to do what they want. But this deception needs to be fought with the truth. Daily.

Ed

 

[Brandall]

The article says: “In a separate study last year, nearly 70 percent of US Catholics said they believe women should be ordained to the priesthood.”

Judging by the Christmas Mass attendance, I’m convinced that 70% don’t attend regularly.

 

[Brandall]

Women should be ordained to the priesthood? It’s the Garden of Eden all over again. You can remain here and eat all you see, except that one tree. So what are some people focused on? That one tree. They cannot see the rest of the Garden and the blessings they can enjoy. How sad.

If women became priests, they would be doing everything. I’m more than happy to leave that vocation to the men, and they will have hundreds of souls to answer for before God. I do not want that weight on my shoulders, and God bless those brave men who answer the call to do so. It should make any God fearing person shiver at the thought.

The Church really needs more saints. Men and women who are drawing down God’s graces upon this dark world in doing their daily duty with much love and connectedness with God. Where’s that conversation? Where’s the articles on that?

That’s an interesting analogy that can be useful in many ways. All of our sin could be described as us choosing more than what God has provided.

 

[edwest2]

Sr. Carole Kane disagreed with the U.S. bishops on Obamacare. This strikes me as a policy debate, not a situation of Faith and Morals.

I just think that there should be more disagreement in the Church. For instance, why is the Catholic Church’s idea of complementarity a settled fact? Why is only one interpretation of Vatican II allowed?

Also, it disturbs me that women promoted as the “token” ladies by the Vatican tend not to be willing to criticize the Church in anything. For instance, one would think that a career women like Helen Alvare would be uncomfortable with the rhetoric that comes out of the Pope’s mouth or the bishops’ mouths sometimes. But I guess Vatican appointments and speaking slots are more important.

Obamacare includes artificial contraception, which the Church is against.

Vatican II stands on its own. Only one interpretation is allowed. The Magisterium is the only authority, not men. The documents produced by the Church explain it all. It appears that even when given the right answer, some choose to not accept it.

What the Catholic Church needs are strong Catholic Communities. It needs to reach people in the highways and the byways. It needs to tell people: “Get to know the person you stand next to in Church. Don’t be strangers who just get in your cars after Mass and go back into the world. Fellowship! Join ministries! Help to carry one another’s burdens!” Being Catholic means being Catholic outside of the Church building every day.

Ed