women's authority in the church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blue_Jr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
graciew said:
Yap.We keep you “informed” of what´s going on all over.😃

Seriously,I believe that much of this reserve about women participating in rituals,altar( I am not referring to women priests) has much to do with the fact that we were considered impure as much of the Old Testament and Judaism did.What do you think?
Click to expand...
Not really. What was considered impure was blood. While women were menstruating or right after labor, they were considered to be going through an impure period. That’s where the purification rituals came in.

I believe that in the world at large there were a number of issues that kept women from being more involved in liturgy.

The structure of the mass was very simple. As it evolved, it engaged more people. Originally, there were no acolytes (servers) or lectors. These came later. There were deacons from the time of the Apostles. The proper role of the deacon was to be by the side of the bishop. That’s still his proper role. There was really no need for anyone else, male or female.

Of course there was the issue that most women did not know how to read. Only nuns knew how to read and some members of the aristocracy. Reading was not considered a necessity. Nuns had to learn to read in order to pray the breviary. Other women didn’t see a need for it.

After Trent, the Church became very clerical and more so after Vatican I. Not only were women not allowed in the sanctuary, but no one who was not a priest, except for the server. This almost cost the Church to lose the entire Franciscan and Cistercian orders.

I think that the fact that the mass was very simple and did not require too many people on the sanctuary, that women did more PR work in society and not real leadership roles and the fact that clericalism took hold and everyone who was not a priest or deacon was chased off the sanctuary,except for altar servers, are strongest reasons why we did not have women serving in the sanctuary. There were little reasons as well, but those did not create real obstacles. I believe that it was a cultural issue and not a gender issue. It was a very clerical culture.

In the ED communities, it’s still a very clerical culture. Whereas in the other religious communities that celebrate the EF or OF its a very fraternal culture. At the EF and OF you see more involvement of women. For example, women are in the schola. In Franciscan communities, if the space allows it, the schola is on the sanctuary, not in the choir loft. Usually, the other religious are also in the sanctuary. If the sanctuary is small, then these folks are on the perimeter. You see this on EWTN. Their sanctuary is tiny. They have little benches in front of the pews. The friars sit there. This includes them in the celebration of the mass with their brother who is presiding.

I believe that it was the simplicity of the mass, clericalism and women’s role in society had more to do with the way things developed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
As to altar servers:

First, it’s not a position of authority, and the Holy See, while recommending that boys be the servers as much as possible, has allowed bishops the authority to allow girls as servers. I didn’t realize this until reading this thread, and all of the answers I could find in the “Ask An Apologist” section of the forum states this. So, I have no issues with female altar servers, and I am glad they’re around. Most of the altar servers at my parish are girls, in fact, and we couldn’t get along without them. (I typed all that out as much for my own clarification as anything else). Same goes for the lectors and extraordinary ministers we have (though I dearly wish that my parish would cut back on the use of extraordinary ministers, male or female, as very few of our services actually call for them, small as the congregation tends to be).

As to authority? Most of the people who work in the Parish Office are gals. Our local nuns do a great deal of the teaching. My own Franciscan fraternity is comprised completely of women except for me, and the Formation Director is a lovely old gal with wisdom in her bones and God in her heart.

I am glad, for one, that our Church presents so many opportunities for women to have such important positions. I know I’d be lost without 'em.
 
QUOTE=JReducation;9153509]Not really. What was considered impure was blood. While women were menstruating or right after labor, they were considered to be going through an impure period. That’s where the purification rituals came in.
Click to expand...
I believe that in the world at large there were a number of issues that kept women from being more involved in liturgy.
Click to expand...
The structure of the mass was very simple. As it evolved, it engaged more people. Originally, there were no acolytes (servers) or lectors. These came later. There were deacons from the time of the Apostles. The proper role of the deacon was to be by the side of the bishop. That’s still his proper role. There was really no need for anyone else, male or female.
Click to expand...
Of course there was the issue that most women did not know how to read. Only nuns knew how to read and some members of the aristocracy. Reading was not considered a necessity. Nuns had to learn to read in order to pray the breviary. Other women didn’t see a need for it.
Click to expand...
After Trent, the Church became very clerical and more so after Vatican I. Not only were women not allowed in the sanctuary, but no one who was not a priest, except for the server. This almost cost the Church to lose the entire Franciscan and Cistercian orders.
Click to expand...
I think that the fact that the mass was very simple and did not require too many people on the sanctuary, that women did more PR work in society and not real leadership roles and the fact that clericalism took hold and everyone who was not a priest or deacon was chased off the sanctuary,except for altar servers, are strongest reasons why we did not have women serving in the sanctuary. There were little reasons as well, but those did not create real obstacles. I believe that it was a cultural issue and not a gender issue. It was a very clerical culture.

In the ED communities, it’s still a very clerical culture. Whereas in the other religious communities that celebrate the EF or OF its a very fraternal culture. At the EF and OF you see more involvement of women. For example, women are in the schola. In Franciscan communities, if the space allows it, the schola is on the sanctuary, not in the choir loft. Usually, the other religious are also in the sanctuary. If the sanctuary is small, then these folks are on the perimeter. You see this on EWTN. Their sanctuary is tiny. They have little benches in front of the pews. The friars sit there. This includes them in the celebration of the mass with their brother who is presiding.
Click to expand...
I believe that it was the simplicity of the mass, clericalism and women’s role in society had more to do with the way things developed.
Click to expand...
Fraternally,
Click to expand...
Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks so much for your time and explanation.Now I understand it better.
 
Crumpy said:
Women have a lot of authority in the Church, but it is in the family, not in the holy orders.

My diocese has been turned over to women, and it is going down in flames. If having women all over the place was supposed to do something, it hasn’t.
Click to expand...
What is it about women that makes them so incompetent in such leadership positions?

Also if women’s authority is confined to the household, then why do people say that the man is the “spiritual head” of the household?
 
Lochias said:
As to altar servers:

First, it’s not a position of authority, and the Holy See, while recommending that boys be the servers as much as possible, has allowed bishops the authority to allow girls as servers. I didn’t realize this until reading this thread, and all of the answers I could find in the “Ask An Apologist” section of the forum states this. So, I have no issues with female altar servers, and I am glad they’re around. Most of the altar servers at my parish are girls, in fact, and we couldn’t get along without them. (I typed all that out as much for my own clarification as anything else). Same goes for the lectors and extraordinary ministers we have (though I dearly wish that my parish would cut back on the use of extraordinary ministers, male or female, as very few of our services actually call for them, small as the congregation tends to be).

As to authority? Most of the people who work in the Parish Office are gals. Our local nuns do a great deal of the teaching. My own Franciscan fraternity is comprised completely of women except for me, and the Formation Director is a lovely old gal with wisdom in her bones and God in her heart.

I am glad, for one, that our Church presents so many opportunities for women to have such important positions. I know I’d be lost without 'em.
Click to expand...
I think that you hint at a very valid point. We have to remember that there are three possibilities:
  1. Position of authority
  2. A liturgical ministry
  3. Other ministries and apostolate
They’re not the same. If we’re going to discuss positions of authority, it would be better if we did not bring up servers and EMHC or any apostolic activity, because they do not qualify under positions of authority.

Positions of authority, other than those that must be held by a priest or a deacon, would be:

  1. *]Diocesan chancellor

    *]Diocesan Director of Department X

    *]Vicar for religious

    *]School or college administrator

    *]Parish administrator

    *]Rector of a seminary

    *]Formation Director

    *]Canon Lawyer

    *]Judge

    *]Superior General

    *]Provincial Superior

    *]Local Superior

    *]Seminary Professor

    *]Director of some department in the larger Church such as the Vatican

    Many men and women hold such positions. Not all of the men are priests or deacons. Like everything else, some are more competent than others. Neither gender has a monopoly on brains or competence. Let’s not forget that one of the brightest and most competent women in Catholic history holds two important positions of authority. She is a foundress/reformer and a Doctor of the Church – St. Teresa of Avila.

    For centuries the Vatican refused to name women as Doctors, because the title means that the person must be accepted as a teacher for the universal Church. It was the mistaken belief that women could not be teachers to the Church, because Paul had told them to shut up. It wasn’t until Pope Paul VI clarified that this was not binding, because it was neither doctrine or moral law. The Vatican breathed more easily and accepted the recommendations on the table to name Teresa and Catherine Doctors of the Church.

    Fraternally,

    Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
The Vatican breathed more easily and accepted the recommendations on the table to name Teresa and Catherine Doctors of the Church.
Click to expand...
Which is interesting, as Teresa (as you mentioned) holds two positions of authority, and St. Catherine (if I’m not mistaken) is the only layman to be a Doctor of the Church.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
What is it about women that makes them so incompetent in such leadership positions?
Click to expand...
They are not incompetent. The fact that one may be, does not mean that all are. Let’s not forget that women have run the largest institutions in the Catholic Church for almost 500 years. They run schools, hospitals, orphanages and other apostolic centers. These administrators were very competent and very independent. There were no men telling them how to budget or how to run things.

As I said in an earlier post, in my diocese the Chancellor and the Vicar for Religious are women. They are very good at what they do.

The religious whom the Holy Father appointed to direct the visitation of American women religious is a woman religious who is also a Canon Lawyer and a Superior General. She’s very good at what she does She had bishops working under her and things went very well.

I know a laywoman who is a professor of theology and chair at one of our seminaries in the USA. She’s excellent.

We can’t generalize in one direction or another. Not everyone is going to be excellent or a failure. You’re going to have both in either gender.
Also if women’s authority is confined to the household, then why do people say that the man is the “spiritual head” of the household?
Click to expand...
Actually, the Church does not say this and has never said this. The Church has spoken about the role of mothers. There is a difference. Not all women are mothers.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF 🙂
 
Melchior said:
Which is interesting, as Teresa (as you mentioned) holds two positions of authority, and St. Catherine (if I’m not mistaken) is the only layman to be a Doctor of the Church.
Click to expand...
That’s right. There are no other laymen (male or female) who are Doctors.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Actually, the Church does not say this and has never said this. The Church has spoken about the role of mothers. There is a difference. Not all women are mothers.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Sorry to be dense, but can you clarify: are you saying that the Church has never said that a man (husband, rather) is the “head” of a household?
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
Sorry to be dense, but can you clarify: are you saying that the Church has never said that a man (husband, rather) is the “head” of a household?
Click to expand...
LOL, no. I’m saying that the Church has never said that a woman’s place is in the home. Some man said that, because he couldn’t afford a housekeeper.

The Church has spoken about the role of the mother and wife. Not all women are mothers or wives. And wives who are not mothers, don’t have a compelling reason to stay at home. Neither do those whose children are not adults and independent. These women have a lot of wisdom and experience to offer after raising a family.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I think that you hint at a very valid point. We have to remember that there are three possibilities:
  1. Position of authority
  2. A liturgical ministry
  3. Other ministries and apostolate
They’re not the same. If we’re going to discuss positions of authority, it would be better if we did not bring up servers and EMHC or any apostolic activity, because they do not qualify under positions of authority.

Positions of authority, other than those that must be held by a priest or a deacon, would be:

  1. *]Diocesan chancellor

    *]Diocesan Director of Department X

    *]Vicar for religious

    *]School or college administrator

    *]Parish administrator

    *]Rector of a seminary

    *]Formation Director

    *]Canon Lawyer

    *]Judge

    *]Superior General

    *]Provincial Superior

    *]Local Superior

    *]Seminary Professor

    *]Director of some department in the larger Church such as the Vatican

    Many men and women hold such positions. Not all of the men are priests or deacons. Like everything else, some are more competent than others. Neither gender has a monopoly on brains or competence. Let’s not forget that one of the brightest and most competent women in Catholic history holds two important positions of authority. She is a foundress/reformer and a Doctor of the Church – St. Teresa of Avila.

    For centuries the Vatican refused to name women as Doctors, because the title means that the person must be accepted as a teacher for the universal Church. It was the mistaken belief that women could not be teachers to the Church, because Paul had told them to shut up. It wasn’t until Pope Paul VI clarified that this was not binding, because it was neither doctrine or moral law. The Vatican breathed more easily and accepted the recommendations on the table to name Teresa and Catherine Doctors of the Church.

    Fraternally,

    Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...

  1. Huh, interesting history there. Thankee much. Indeed, where would we be without all the nuns who taught school, and have continued to do so, for years and years?
 
JReducation said:
They are not incompetent. The fact that one may be, does not mean that all are. Let’s not forget that women have run the largest institutions in the Catholic Church for almost 500 years. They run schools, hospitals, orphanages and other apostolic centers. These administrators were very competent and very independent. There were no men telling them how to budget or how to run things.

As I said in an earlier post, in my diocese the Chancellor and the Vicar for Religious are women. They are very good at what they do.

The religious whom the Holy Father appointed to direct the visitation of American women religious is a woman religious who is also a Canon Lawyer and a Superior General. She’s very good at what she does She had bishops working under her and things went very well.

I know a laywoman who is a professor of theology and chair at one of our seminaries in the USA. She’s excellent.

We can’t generalize in one direction or another. Not everyone is going to be excellent or a failure. You’re going to have both in either gender.

Actually, the Church does not say this and has never said this. The Church has spoken about the role of mothers. There is a difference. Not all women are mothers.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
I laugh when I hear the claim that women are not as “competent” or whatever as men. I work for a Catholic hospital founded by Sisters around the turn of the last century. They have guided this institution, directed it’s growth, seen to it’s expansion, and helped steer it through many economic storms. When other health care institutions were failing, ours was thriving and still managing to provide free care for the poor. There are men, of course, who are on the board of directors, and the CEO (at this time) is male, but for a hundred years it has mostly been women running the institution and making the decisions, and they still play the major role. You can’t be incompetent and have a track record like that. Plus there are many other hospital systems in this country alone founded by women that have been taking care of the poor for over a century. And providing jobs for large numbers of people in their community.

I have always said that if we really wanted to balance the budget and still take care of society’s needs in this country, we should have a Nun as President, and her Sisters in Congress.

Treating half of the human race as if they are inferior is demeaning to God, who created all in His image and likeness.
 
The Queen of all saints is a woman. What more do we need to believe that there is no competency shortfall with women.

…and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers. (Job 42:15b)
 
I’m going by what I see in the various churches I have access to and the changes I’ve seen since the early 70’s.

It’s a simple observation that if you a imagine an pre-1940’s Sunday mass in a suburban or rural church and then fast-forward to 2012, the changes are wide and significant.

Let’s list some, shall we?

Vernacular
CITH
Sentimental, vernacular hymns,
Laity in the sanctuary,
Laity orating at funerals,
Pop bands,
A rewritten mass,
The dropping of Prime and the Prayer to St. Michael and the rewriting of the Rite of Exorcism.

And a weird emphasis on eco-social-justice-feminist concerns and a corresponding lack of basic teaching from the pulpit. I can remember striking remarks from the pulpit about 4 or 5 times in all those years.

The feminisation of our religion is part of this. I think it goes back to a de-emphasis on Judgement and an overemphasis on Love.

If Jesus loves you, sins and all, then religious practice isn’t important and can be left to the women. It becomes … nicer. So relax.** Thus, the first generation contracepts, the second divorces and the third becomes pagan.**

What’s particularly galling about this is that it seemed new and original to Catholics but the same Pentecostal feel-good religion has been pushed by Protestants for much longer. And look how they are imploding.
 
PhilOSophia said:
I’m going by what I see in the various churches I have access to and the changes I’ve seen since the early 70’s.

It’s a simple observation that if you a imagine an pre-1940’s Sunday mass in a suburban or rural church and then fast-forward to 2012, the changes are wide and significant.

Let’s list some, shall we?

Vernacular
CITH
Sentimental, vernacular hymns,
Laity in the sanctuary,
Laity orating at funerals,
Pop bands,
A rewritten mass,
The dropping of Prime and the Prayer to St. Michael and the rewriting of the Rite of Exorcism.

And a weird emphasis on eco-social-justice-feminist concerns and a corresponding lack of basic teaching from the pulpit. I can remember striking remarks from the pulpit about 4 or 5 times in all those years.

The feminisation of our religion is part of this. I think it goes back to a de-emphasis on Judgement and an overemphasis on Love.

If Jesus loves you, sins and all, then religious practice isn’t important and can be left to the women. It becomes … nicer. So relax.** Thus, the first generation contracepts, the second divorces and the third becomes pagan.**

What’s particularly galling about this is that it seemed new and original to Catholics but the same Pentecostal feel-good religion has been pushed by Protestants for much longer. And look how they are imploding.
Click to expand...
You’re mixing up two things here. It is as if you’re saying everything that occured is the result of women being involved in the Church. Are women more involved because of the changes or did the changes occur because of women?

It is important to really examine our consciences and see what is righteous anger and what is plain old chauvanism.
If Jesus loves you, sins and all, then religious practice isn’t important and can be left to the women. It becomes … nicer. So relax.
Click to expand...
This comment is offensive. When most women stayed in the home, who do you think gave the kids most of the religious education? Not the fathers who were out working. That’s right. The women. Even if men are the spiritual head of the home, most of the instruction comes from the women.

Like I said, really examine yourself. Women are to be loved and appreciated. We are different from men, but just as valuable. And guess what? We also have brains.

Having said that, I actually prefer for men to be altar servers and readers. Even though some argue that having male altar servers doesn’t increase vocations, I think it does.

But outside of mass, women can help in all sort of ways - not traditionally feminine ones.
 
PhilOSophia said:
I’m going by what I see in the various churches I have access to and the changes I’ve seen since the early 70’s.

It’s a simple observation that if you a imagine an pre-1940’s Sunday mass in a suburban or rural church and then fast-forward to 2012, the changes are wide and significant.

Let’s list some, shall we?

Vernacular
CITH
Sentimental, vernacular hymns,
Laity in the sanctuary,
Laity orating at funerals,
Pop bands,
A rewritten mass,
The dropping of Prime and the Prayer to St. Michael and the rewriting of the Rite of Exorcism.

And a weird emphasis on eco-social-justice-feminist concerns and a corresponding lack of basic teaching from the pulpit. I can remember striking remarks from the pulpit about 4 or 5 times in all those years.

The feminisation of our religion is part of this. I think it goes back to a de-emphasis on Judgement and an overemphasis on Love.

If Jesus loves you, sins and all, then religious practice isn’t important and can be left to the women. It becomes … nicer. So relax.** Thus, the first generation contracepts, the second divorces and the third becomes pagan.**

What’s particularly galling about this is that it seemed new and original to Catholics but the same Pentecostal feel-good religion has been pushed by Protestants for much longer. And look how they are imploding.
Click to expand...
Surely you aren’t blaming women for all that?

You may be interested to know that in the Solesmes congregation of Benedictine abbeys, the only OF abbeys that I know of that retained Prime are abbeys of Benedictine nuns.

Quite frankly your assertions are preposterous. The simplification of the Divine Office is something diocesan clergy had been requesting for decades.

I won’t get into the other issues. I would though suggest to re-read what St Paul has to say about faith without love.
 
Nope, women aren’t to blame for all that.

Here’s the nub of it:

**All the changes since the 1940’s, examined in isolation, seem reasonable. You can find a precedent, however tenuous, for them.

But all together, and over time, ah, then a very different picture emerges.**

It’s like the frog in the fying pan. The pan heats up slowly so he doesn’t know he’s being cooked.
 
CB_Catholic said:
I laugh when I hear the claim that women are not as “competent” or whatever as men. I work for a Catholic hospital founded by Sisters around the turn of the last century. They have guided this institution, directed it’s growth, seen to it’s expansion, and helped steer it through many economic storms. When other health care institutions were failing, ours was thriving and still managing to provide free care for the poor. There are men, of course, who are on the board of directors, and the CEO (at this time) is male, but for a hundred years it has mostly been women running the institution and making the decisions, and they still play the major role. You can’t be incompetent and have a track record like that. Plus there are many other hospital systems in this country alone founded by women that have been taking care of the poor for over a century. And providing jobs for large numbers of people in their community.

I have always said that if we really wanted to balance the budget and still take care of society’s needs in this country, we should have a Nun as President, and her Sisters in Congress.

Treating half of the human race as if they are inferior is demeaning to God, who created all in His image and likeness.
Click to expand...
Cannot agree more.👍👍👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top