women priests

[Abu]

Thank you, Ed.

 

[Abu]

As to “theological points” over which Contarini mulls, as in post #86:

but the heavy-handed use of authority to end debate before it had properly begun. There is simply no evidence I’ve seen that Rome has even considered or heard of the actual theological arguments for women’s ordination. There’s something deeply disturbing about this pattern of behavior, and in the past, as I said, it has never ended well.

The outlandish feeling that “There is simply no evidence that Rome has even considered or heard of the actual theological arguments for women’s ordination" appears to assume that the Magisterium jumps to conclusions to formulate doctrine!

We all need to know that:
“11. Never forgetting that he is also a member of the People of God, the theologian must foster respect for them and be committed to offering them a teaching which in no way does harm to the doctrine of the faith.”
Given at Rome, at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on May 24, 1990, the Solemnity of the Ascension of the Lord.

JOSEPH CARD. RATZINGER
Prefect

Sister Sara Butler who, “for many years supported the ordination of women”, has changed, and considers the “fundamental reasons” and “theological reasons”, reviewed at:
**Women and the Catholic Priesthood
By Monica Migliorino Miller
Wednesday, September 26, 2007, 6:56 AM **
firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2007/09/women-and-the-catholic-priesth

Extracts:
*The Catholic Priesthood and Women *is a defense and an interpretation of the Church’s doctrine. It attempts to provide a new generation of young Catholics and, most especially, seminarians with an understanding of the Church’s teaching and give them a “theological orientation to the topic that engages the chief objections.” Its author, Sister Sara Butler, MSBT, is a well-respected theologian who taught at Mundelein Seminary and currently holds a position at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Dunwoodie, New York. **She openly confesses in the book’s introduction that for many years she supported the ordination of women. She credits John Paul II’s “theology of the body” and “his response to the feminist critique in the apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem (1988)” for her change of heart on this matter.

Her work, divided into seven chapters, is a concise treatment of the subject. While Butler is a scholar, this book can be read and appreciated by those who are not trained theologians. The book provides a summary of the primary Vatican documents regarding women’s ordination, with an explanation of objections and responses to these arguments. However, the primary focus of the book is a lengthy consideration of what she terms the “fundamental reasons” versus the “theological reasons” regarding the ban on women priests as she believes they are articulated in *Inter Insigniores *and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

Butler believes that those who advocate for women in the priesthood are too preoccupied with the theological arguments and do not sufficiently appreciate or understand the “fundamental reasons” for the Church’s position. Her insistence on this point is one of the book’s strengths. However, it should be noted that* Inter Insigniores *does not actually use the language of “fundamental reasons” and “theological reasons.” Instead the document explains the Church’s position and follows that explanation with theological arguments. I will show that there is more of an overlap between these two approaches to the doctrine than Butler admits.

Catholics need to be well informed on the subject of this book if they are to offer a reasoned defense to a world that fails to appreciate sexual differences, much less the sacramental significance of those differences. Butler’s treatment of the Church’s ban on women priests, while not perfect, is a welcomed examination of a topic that still proves troubling to many. Considering her own personal intellectual transformation and her standing in the scholarly community, Butler’s book may have a positive influence on those who still find it difficult to accept the Church’s teaching on the all-male priesthood.

 

[Xeyed818]

It has nothing to do with moral character. It has to do with ontology. The claim is that women are different from men and thus can’t act in persona Christi.

I don’t think the theological anthropology behind this has been worked out, or that the significant differences between the modern Catholic understanding (in which men and women are equal but different) and the traditional cultural view inherited from the pagans (in which women were inferior) have been adequately addressed. But it has nothing to do with thinking men holier or more moral than women.

Edwin

I really was kidding, Edwin. Granted, it took many years for me to turn to the Bible but, once there, I discovered that Jesus actually considered my soul of equal worth with a man’s soul. Now, what other considerations there are - whether my flesh has different properties that are a factor (hormones?), I don’t know.

Or maybe because woman was taken from Adam and, though powerful, still but a rib.
"Flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone’ vs. Laban and Jacob’s salutation to each other, “My bone, my flesh.”

All I really know (with much gratitude) is that…I’m not angry about it anymore.

PJ

 

[simpleas]

So pleased this thread has not been closed!

So far so good.

Thanks everyone for your contributions

Does anyone have any information, thoughts etc on the evidence given in this website?

stchrysostoms.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/the-priesthood-of-mary/

I wondered how much truth was in the claim?

But these words make sense to me :

In an address by Bishop Nazlian, at Lourdes in 1914 said “ A priest has the power to mystically produce the body of the Lord giving that body its sacramental form . . . . I allow myself to say that Mary is the first to say Mass, by agreeing to the Incarnation and so preparing the victim.”

Thanks

 

[Xeyed818]

Rev. Sr. Sara Butler was on the International Theological Commission (ITC) from 2004-2014. As mentioned in Abu’s post, she previously supported female ordination. Here is one of her previous writings on the topic.

Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Ordination of Roman Catholic Women
(p. 117)

November 10-12, 1978, Baltimore, Maryland

womenpriests.org/classic2/nwnc_cnt.asp

---

**List of the Documents of the International Theological Commission **(in chronological order)

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_index-doc-pubbl_en.html

Two articles in the above list are:

ITC - CATHOLIC TEACHING ON APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION* (1973)

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1973_successione-apostolica_en.html

---

ITC - THE PRIESTLY MINISTRY* (1970)

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1970_sacerdozio-cattolico_en.html

PJ

 

[casslean]

Now do you have anything to say about the theological points I’ve raised? Or are they simply uninteresting to you?

They’re just uninteresting. You know why? Because the CDF and the Holy Father have been asked this question. They have given clear, decisive, unambiguous answers, supported by theology and tradition. I don’t get to decide they must be wrong because I don’t like the answer. (Which isn’t the case, I find the answer perfectly acceptable and not at all demeaning to me as a woman).

 

[Tigg]

Abu, I’m aware of this information.

Now do you have anything to say about the theological points I’ve raised?

Or are they simply uninteresting to you? If so, why are you still participating in this conversation?

No one is disputing that Pope JPII made a solemn statement declaring the matter closed, and that the CDF has since said that the statement was infallible, although in a somewhat indirect manner.

Happy now?

Maybe this will help regarding “assent.” The CDF wrote an instruction that rejects the view that “the documents of the Magisterium . . . reflect nothing more than a debatable theology” and criticizes the ‘parallel magisterium of theologians’ that purports to operate in opposition to and in competition with the Magisterium of the pastors of the Church. (emphasis mine)

**“To ponder with assent is distinctive of the believer,” **[Aquinas] wrote, “for this is how the believer’s act of belief is set off from all other acts of the mind concerned with the true or false” (2a2ae q. 2, art. 1). Believing assent describes the interior act of faith, that which occurs in both the heart and the mind of the person who accepts the truth of the Catholic faith. “The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it” (CCC 1816).

For divine truth alone measures theological faith.

“The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent. **In fact this freedom does not indicate at all freedom with regard to the truth but signifies the free self-determination of the person in conformity with his moral obligation to accept the truth. **The act of faith is a voluntary act because man, saved by Christ the Redeemer and called by him to be an adopted son, cannot adhere to God unless, drawn by the Father” (Jn 6:44), he offer God the rational homage of his faith (no. 36).

cchope.freeservers.com/Pol_Ed/Assent%20and%20Dissent.htm

 

[Xeyed818]

Can “Rev.” stand for anything besides “Reverend”? Revered?

ITC membership list:

“8) Rev. Sr. Sara BUTLER, M.S.B.T. (Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the University of St. Mary of the Lake [Mundelein Seminary] of Chicago, U.S.A.)”

To me, it would just be odd if she changed her mind about ‘female priests’, yet retained a similar status in a different church, IF Rev. stands for ‘reverend’.

PJ

 

[Xeyed818]

Here’s a new twist (to me). In essence, all the walls preventing women from becoming priests…will come tumbling down…simply because there are not enough male priests?

articles.courant.com/2005-05-15/features/0505150531_1_pontifical-council-pope-john-paul-ii-dioceses

May 15, 2005|By PATRICIA MONTEMURRI Knight Ridder Newspapers

In a world dominated by men, some smart, powerful Catholic women are making inroads.

``If you knock the issue of ordination off the table, women have advanced significantly,’’ even at the Vatican, Sister Mary Ann Walsh, the spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in Rome recently.

The Vatican employee who established the website where Pope John Paul II’s teachings are posted in six languages is an American Franciscan nun, Sister Judith Loebelein, nicknamed Sister Web.

An Italian Salesian nun, Sister Enrica Rossana, was **named last year as the third-ranking official in the Vatican office overseeing religious *men and women ***-- the first time a woman was promoted to a position held by priests since the Roman Curia was established in the 16th century.

**The manpower shortage in the church -- there just aren't enough priests **-- will lead to major employment of women,'' predicted Paul Hofmann, author of The Vatican’s Women.’’

PJ

 

[unstoppable_II]

You have mentioned in passing that only one third of the Catholics believe in the real presence but this cannot be true.There are 126 Eucharistic miracles around the world which bear testimony and Catholics cannot be oblivious to these facts…

Oh, yes they can. If you don’t believe me, just join a small Christian community in your parish. You’ll see.

 

[Abu]

Xeyed818 #132
Here’s a new twist (to me). In essence, all the walls preventing women from becoming priests…will come tumbling down…simply because there are not enough male priests?

There is no such irrelevant question as valid, as Jesus chose only males to be His priests and bishops, as *in persona Christi *– the twelve Apostles, has instituted His Church – the Catholic Church – to teach, rule and sanctify. His “walls” never “tumble down” but the “feeling” expresses the continued confusion when His teaching and that of His Church is ignored for self expression.

The manpower shortage in the church -- there just aren't enough priests -- will lead to major employment of women,'' predicted Paul Hofmann, author of The Vatican’s Women.’’

The “major employment of women” has nothing to do with changing Christ’s established priesthood.

 

[unstoppable_II]

**The manpower shortage in the church -- there just aren't enough priests **-- will lead to major employment of women,'' predicted Paul Hofmann, author of The Vatican’s Women.’’

PJ

A priest once told me that the Church will let priests marry before it will ordain women.

I find it interesting that this thread was put in the social justice category, as though there were some injustice being done by not ordaining women. I don’t know if anyone else has mentioned this, but the priesthood does not exist to provide occupational opportunities for women, or any other group.

 

[edwest2]

A priest once told me that the Church will let priests marry before it will ordain women.

I find it interesting that this thread was put in the social justice category, as though there were some injustice being done by not ordaining women. I don’t know if anyone else has mentioned this, but the priesthood does not exist to provide occupational opportunities for women, or any other group.

I’ve read posts here that clearly describe it as an issue of “progress” for women. Also, on sites that advocate for women as priests, we are told they don’t accept what the Church teaches. In another case, the idea is that women are being “marginalized” by not being allowed to be priests, which is simply untrue. Secular ideas about “progress” cannot interfere with the Deposit of Faith. These sorts of discussions become circular quite quickly. The issue has been answered, and answered…

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ender]

A priest once told me that the Church will let priests marry before it will ordain women.

The church has the authority to allow priests to marry as that is a discipline she has imposed. She has no authority to ordain women as that is a restriction Christ has imposed.

Ender

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Of course there have been a few posts made since I did the above back on #92, but nobody ever addressed it, not simpleas, and not even Edwin:

Quote:
 	 		 			 				 					Originally Posted by **simpleas** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12687132#post12687132) 				
			*I think teachings can change, God  doesn't change, but our way of thinking about him does. The Church has  the authority to change the teaching, it is in charge of it. The holy  spirit guides the church, but if the church closes off certain teachings  how can the holy spirit guide from behind a closed door? :shrug:*

No, the Church does NOT have the authority .

Basically if one took your argument to its logical conclusion, the Church could never teach anything as ‘finite’, because if it did, the Holy Spirit couldn’t ‘change’ that finite teaching because it was ‘closed off’.

But the Church does teach things as finite, doesn’t it? God is a Trinity, not a duo or a quartet, and **that will not change.

**So there are some things the Spirit has already decided as ‘final’, right?

Why is it so hard to accept the Spirit has already spoken through the Church regarding what is valid matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders, and will not change, any more than the Spirit/Church will change matter for the Eucharist from bread and wine to pizza and beer, or change the criteria for matrimony from one man and one woman to two men, or two women?

******Again, the Church teaches with authority in the examples above: i.e. God is a Trinity, not a Duo or Quartet; valid matter for the Eucharist is only wheat bread and grape wine (yes, very low, not ‘no’ gluten is still wheat bread, yes, ‘mustum’ is still grape wine), and not beer and pizza, valid matter for the sacrament of Matrimony is one man and one woman (free to marry), not two men or two women,

WHY is it so hard to accept that the Church has no more authority to change who may be validly ordained than it does the above?

Of course we do have the fringies who are bleating ‘gay marriage is what Jesus would have wanted’ (the same as they insist He would have ordained women back in the day but was prevented by ‘social mores’ then). We have the ‘symbolic Eucharist’ crowd who see nothing wrong with serving up rice cakes and grape juice because it’s KINDER to the celiacs and alcoholics. And we have Unitarians and others who deny the Trinity, and let’s face it, what seems an unfortunate number of ‘closet’ Trinity deniers who while they say they ‘accept’ the Trinity are ‘more comfortable’ only addressing "Father’ or "Jesus’ and ignore anything else. I feel that we’re going to get more of these coming ‘out of the closet’ if you will and invoking Bart Ehrman and ‘theological experts’ to downplay Jesus (and of course the Holy Spirit, although they will probably rework that into the feminine SOPHIA and insist that the ‘God concept’ which is male and “Sophia” (female) are really us and that we invented God, yadda yadda.

NONE of this, as others have noted, has really anything to do with social justice. It has to do with a misunderstanding of various aspects of the Catholic Faith mixed in with a not-so-healthy kind of arrogant assumption that the Church, that tired old group of ‘old men’, is hopelessly out of touch and has passed the line into outright repression and needs to be ‘rescued’. . .for what, they dare not say!

 

[edwest2]

The issue, for some, boils down to worldviews. These worldviews, too often, are shaped by the media. One belief system insists on change. The ‘social furniture’ is not arranged to their liking. So, they produce advertising campaigns at every communications level: Movies, TV, books, newspapers, the radio… Every way that can be used to spread the message is being used and while some can be convinced of the truth, others are moved just as much by emotion, a desire for novelty and human nature, which exists in a fallen state.

Just keep repeating the truth. That’s all that needs to be done.

Ed

 

[Contarini]

Tantum Ergo, I didn’t address the point because I disagreed with the argument being made, and while I try to address what I think are bad arguments for women’s ordination, it’s hard to address all of them while also keeping up “my side” of the argument. I thought the Catholics were doing a fine job of knocking that particular bad argument down

Also, while we’re on the subject, I agree that this discussion doesn’t belong in the social justice forum. If women are valid subjects for the sacrament of Holy Orders, then women’s ordination would be a social justice issue. But the question of validity itself is not one of social justice but of theological anthropology.

My problem with the official Catholic position and its defenders is:

1. Questions of theological anthropology are ignored (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) or dealt with very superficially (Inter Insigniores)
2. The “fundamental reasons” official documents cite, principally the choice of men to be members of the Twelve, are extremely unconvincing; and
3. Given the weak and undeveloped nature of the theological discussion so far, at least on the “orthodox” side, JPII’s statement in OS was at the very least inopportune, because it stifled real theological discussion while of course failing to shut down the genuine dissenters who don’t care about Church authority.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The issue, for some, boils down to worldviews. These worldviews, too often, are shaped by the media. One belief system insists on change. The ‘social furniture’ is not arranged to their liking. So, they produce advertising campaigns at every communications level: Movies, TV, books, newspapers, the radio… Every way that can be used to spread the message is being used and while some can be convinced of the truth, others are moved just as much by emotion, a desire for novelty and human nature, which exists in a fallen state.

Just keep repeating the truth. That’s all that needs to be done.

Ed

Right. And the truth I’m going to keep repeating is that my position is based on orthodox, patristic teaching, on the theological anthropology of the Fathers and the medieval scholastics, once the belief in women’s intrinsic inferiority is removed (which both sides agree it should be). In other words, I’m a feminist in the same sense JPII and BXVI and Pope Francis were/are feminists. In fact, I’m perhaps less of one, since the argument about the maleness of the Twelve seems to assume that if Jesus could have chosen women he would have been morally obligated to do so, which I do not concede.

Edwin

 

[Rau]

renewedpriesthood.org/ca/page.cfm?Web_ID=1229

Apparently 3 unnamed male bishops ordained some women as bishops, such that the ongoing ordination of women as priests can be self sustaining. Fascinating.

Curious that the Vatican is not more clear cut in denouncing all this (or maybe I’m just unaware of it).

A bit like the sedevacantists - how is it that such bishops and priests - who have outright rejected the the last so many Popes, get to continue to call themselves Roman Catholic Priests and Bishops? Ought they not to be defrocked? Or have they been?

 

[Rau]

Right. And the truth I’m going to keep repeating is that my position is based on orthodox, patristic teaching, on the theological anthropology of the Fathers and the medieval scholastics, once the belief in women’s intrinsic inferiority is removed (which both sides agree it should be). In other words, I’m a feminist in the same sense JPII and BXVI and Pope Francis were/are feminists. In fact, I’m perhaps less of one, since the argument about the maleness of the Twelve seems to assume that if Jesus could have chosen women he would have been morally obligated to do so, which I do not concede.

Edwin

As I understand it, the Church does not so much believe that it is instructed not to ordain women, but it is not in possession of a basis to believe it is ok to ordain them. It has precedent for the ordination of men, none for the ordination of women.

If anyone believes there is a basis to believe ordination of women is explicitly forbidden - beyond an appeal to precedent - I’d be interested to hear it.