J
- Status
B
Blue_Jr
Guest
Ok thanks JReducation
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
One thing to point out…when the priest is giving you communion…he himself is not presiding as Jesus…he is holding up Jesus…which is different…a Deacon is not presiding as Jesus as the ordinary minister of communion. A women as EMHC is just that…an extraordinary minister of communion…they are not and never will be a priest. But consecrating the Eucharist is not the same as delivering communion. A priest consecrates the Eucharist…a deacon can’t but yet a deacon can give out Holy communion.
B
Blue_Jr
Guest
So what’s the difference between a deacon and a emhc?
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
A deacon is a ordained. He is the official “minister of the cup” and can witness weddings, preside over funerals, baptize. He cannot confect the eucharist or hear confession. He is not paid for his duties and often has a secular job or is retired from a secular career. Deacons can be married.
An EMHC is a lay person. They are usually choosen by the Pastor of a parish. They undergo specific training (detailed training in my diocese) and can distribute communion during Mass and to the sick and homebound.
In many parishes, the priests (and deacons), do not have time to visit every sick or homebound parishioner every week. Having EMHCs who can take communion to them is a great blessing. In my parish we have teams of 6-8 who take communion to the sick, including a nursing home and assisted living center. It usually takes each person at least an hour. While our deacons do try to get out to the nursing home weekly, our priests could not conduct 6 Sunday Masses and make 8 hours worth of visits each Sunday!
J
JReducation
Guest
Everything Mrs Sally said and a few other things.
- Deacon is a clergyman.
- He is one of the three ordinary ministers of Holy Communion: deacon, priest and bishop
- His hands are not consecrated – that blows the myth of consecrated hands touching the host. Consecrated hands are for consecrating, not touching. Aquinas was wrong on that count.
- A married man can become a deacon, but a deacon cannot marry. Once ordained, you are bound to celibacy. If you are single, you’re bound to celibacy from then on. If you’re married, you’re bound to celibacy if your spouse dies. This is the same in the Eastern Churches and the Orthodox Churches.
- The deacon’s rightful place is by the bishop. He is really ordained to serve the bishop.
- His proper ministry is to care for widows, orphans and the poor in the name of the bishop. Today, we include the sick.
- Some deacons are paid by the diocese, if they work for the diocese. For example, in my diocese, the rector of the seminary is a deacon. He’s paid. The director of the diaconate program is also a deacon. He is paid. We have deacons who run various diocesan organizations.
- Becoming a priest is strongly discourage among deacons. Some people have asked why a deacon who is a widower can’t be ordained. It is the view of the Church that the diaconate is a complete vocation, not a step toward the priesthood.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
M
mexilad
Guest
The last observation was that when the women come in the men head out. You addressed each point but that one. When men feel they are not needed, they will leave. When men feel needed or there is a role for them to fill they will step up to the plate.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
If a man/boy was doing it before than they are still needed. Say a parish has 10 altar boys. The parish grows, or the priest would like the servers to take on new resonsibilities, so he says we need 20. If among the new 10 that volunteer, there are 5 girls, that doesn’t mean no boys are needed. If boys start dropping out, 20 positions still need to be filled. If they are filled by girls, that isn’t the girls fault. The boys who quit and their parents who let them are the ones at fault.
Same with lectors, ushers, singers, EMHCs etc. If men were doing those jobs, then men are still needed.
B
Baelor
Guest
It actually was. I addressed it directly in the case of altar servers. We are talking about children. These children have parents. It is not the fault of girls serving that young boys are not there; it is the fault of the parents of the young boys who do not volunteer their children (assuming that there is no foul play).
There is nothing to address here. It is not the women’s responsibility to back out simply because men do not wish to sing, be EMHCs, be lectors, etc. alongside women. There clearly was a need at some point because there are people doing it now. Your hypothesis does not hold in that case because even when there was a need, no men volunteered. It is a non-issue.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m not buying this whole woman thing for one simple reason. I belong to a community that has 10 religious brothers to every one priest. These brothers are men, not women. However, there is still the same whining from the same camp, because the brothers distribute Holy Communion, because the brothers do the readings, because the brothers visit the sick and take them Holy Communion, because the brothers are the chaplains to the local hospital, because the brothers are the spiritual directors that the parish offers, because a brother is the pastor’s superior and the pastor has to bow to his orders.
I believe that some people are truly uncomfortable with female servers, EMHC and lectors. For some people, the gender issue is not the issue. The real issue is clericalism. They became used to the clericalism of the 19th century.
To me, this is very normal. There should be no one alive born before 1890. Catholics would not remember the days when diocesan priests were a minority. Until about 1890, diocesan priests in the USA made up about 20% of the priests in the USA.
To promote vocations to the priesthood, the bishops asked the religious superiors to take on many roles that were outside of the religious vocation. This made them more visible as priests and less visible as religious. The 20th century Catholic grew up with this image of the priest. Now, we have many men and women who are not priests (women for obvious reasons) and many 20th century Catholics are uncomfortable with them in roles that they thought were only for priests or for males on the way to the priesthood, which was not the case until the late 19th century. Even then, the vocations to the diocesan priesthood did not explode until after WW II. But look at the disaster that ensued when we got into numbers and failed to pay attention to quality.
Among the post WW II priests were the men who derailed what Vatican II taught, threw out the catechism, ran away with women, molested children, wrecked the formation programs in seminaries and religious orders and practically destroyed religious life and the priesthood both.
My point is that we who are in religious life DO NOT WANT GREATER NUMBERS. We want smaller numbers and greater quality. Even if people have to travel 50 miles to go to mass, it’s better for them than to travel three blocks to a parish that is heterodox.
Even if you close four parishes, it’s better for the Church to have religious doing what they’re supposed to be doing rather than running parishes. They don’t earn any points for themselves or the Church for being out of compliance with their founders. The whole idea of having religious in the Church is that they are the spiritual backbone of the Church. A backbone that looks like a leg bone has serious problems. In other words, religious should not look like diocesan priests.
In the absence of large numbers of diocesan priests and the fact that religious orders do not ordain as many men as we once did, we have to learn to live with men and women who are not priests doing many things that we thought could only be done by priests. We have to not attribute our discomfort to gender. Most of the time, it’s not about gender.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I believe that some people are truly uncomfortable with female servers, EMHC and lectors. For some people, the gender issue is not the issue. The real issue is clericalism. They became used to the clericalism of the 19th century.
To me, this is very normal. There should be no one alive born before 1890. Catholics would not remember the days when diocesan priests were a minority. Until about 1890, diocesan priests in the USA made up about 20% of the priests in the USA.
To promote vocations to the priesthood, the bishops asked the religious superiors to take on many roles that were outside of the religious vocation. This made them more visible as priests and less visible as religious. The 20th century Catholic grew up with this image of the priest. Now, we have many men and women who are not priests (women for obvious reasons) and many 20th century Catholics are uncomfortable with them in roles that they thought were only for priests or for males on the way to the priesthood, which was not the case until the late 19th century. Even then, the vocations to the diocesan priesthood did not explode until after WW II. But look at the disaster that ensued when we got into numbers and failed to pay attention to quality.
Among the post WW II priests were the men who derailed what Vatican II taught, threw out the catechism, ran away with women, molested children, wrecked the formation programs in seminaries and religious orders and practically destroyed religious life and the priesthood both.
My point is that we who are in religious life DO NOT WANT GREATER NUMBERS. We want smaller numbers and greater quality. Even if people have to travel 50 miles to go to mass, it’s better for them than to travel three blocks to a parish that is heterodox.
Even if you close four parishes, it’s better for the Church to have religious doing what they’re supposed to be doing rather than running parishes. They don’t earn any points for themselves or the Church for being out of compliance with their founders. The whole idea of having religious in the Church is that they are the spiritual backbone of the Church. A backbone that looks like a leg bone has serious problems. In other words, religious should not look like diocesan priests.
In the absence of large numbers of diocesan priests and the fact that religious orders do not ordain as many men as we once did, we have to learn to live with men and women who are not priests doing many things that we thought could only be done by priests. We have to not attribute our discomfort to gender. Most of the time, it’s not about gender.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
mick321
Guest
[This review is from: *The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity]
.
amazon.com/The-Church-Impotent-Feminization-Christianity/dp/1890626198/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
.
M
mick321
Guest
B
ballin
Guest
I think while you have a point that correlation does not imply causation, there is perhaps good evidence to think that the existing data does point to a causal relationship.
The vocations in the Europe and Americas, where the non-traditional practice are prevalent show a great drop in vocations compared to that of the Africas and Asian parts of the church which still follow more traditional practices.
So you can think of this as a controlled experiment and it seems to conclude that the non-traditional values of the West could most likely be a root cause of the decline of vocations.
The only other variable seems to be cultural change in the West. But this change would be facilitated and driven forward by adopting non-traditional values by the Church it-self. So even if the root cause is something other than the adoption of non-traditional values, it would still seem to be the case that it is at-least a secondary cause.
B
ballin
Guest
I think for all purposes, going back is not an option for the Western part of the world anymore. By first abandoning its traditional positions, it has already committed and facilitated change. Going back is probably going to be very difficult and met with a large back-lash.Don’t you see that none of this has to do with women in positions of authority. The thread is about women in positions of authority.
You have not proven that women in positions of authority have caused any of this. Much of what you’re condemning is quite legal, so you have to take those things out of the equation. When you’re left with what are real abuses, not preferences, none of them can be proven to be the effect of women in authority.
You’re making a correlation that does not exist. Women have been hired for positions of authority, because they compete for them and have proven that they can do the job as well as any man. Prior to 1965, we did not allow women to study advanced theology, scripture, canon law, ministry, divinity, or to get ecclesiastical degrees. If a Catholic woman wanted an advanced degree in theology or ministry, she had to attend a Protestant school of divinity. There were not many that accepted women.
Schools of divinity and schools of theology operated much like schools of medicine. They were boys clubs.
Do you want to go back to these days when women’s right to advanced education was limited? Do you want to go back to the days when only priests could be assigned to hold positions of authority, even if they were not educated for those positions or they did not want them? It was not only women who were banned from positions of authority, but any male who was not a priest, even if he was a religious. Women fell into that group by default, since they could not be priest.
What was an even greater silliness was the male religious were allowed to get higher education in ecclesiastical fields. But if they were religious brothers and not ordained priests, they could not practice their field of study. There were Brother Theologians teaching high school religion class, when they should have been teaching at a seminary or university.
There were sisters that could not teach beyond the Baltimore Catechism, because they were not allowed to read theology. They had the catechism memorized, but they could not tell you where those answers originated or spell out for you the historical development of those doctrines. In other words, they could not tell Aquinas apart of Augustine, because they never studied them. They got into trouble after Vatican II, because they had never studied canon law. They began to make changes in their communities that were contrary to canon law and were contrary to the history of religious life, but they were not educated in either, yet were told to renew their congregations by returning to the roots of religious life. They never studied the roots of religious life. Perfectae Caritatis came out in the early 60s and the schools of theology were not open to women until the 70s and some later.
I don’t believe that the Church wants to go back to that era when women were not allowed to know much more than the catechism. The Church wants to make open the possibility for those women who want to go beyond the basics.
She wants to hire these women, be they religious sisters or lay women. If they can do the job, let them have it
Remember, you have to separate liturgy from governance. We’re talking about positions of authority here, not about liturgy. Even in liturgy, we have to distinguish between our preferences and what the Church lawfully allows. The Church has always lawfully allowed many things that made some happy and other people not so happy. You can’t please everyone.
If you don’t make the distinction between governance and liturgy, between what is allowed and what is contrary to law, then you fall into the area of chauvinism.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
So the only solution is probably to keep what is there at this point and make sure the rules are tightened to prevent any more deviance. The recent change/improvement in the liturgy and its regulations for an example is probably a step in the right direction.
With these sort of regulations in place, perhaps the normative behavior in the past might return automatically. But it would certainly be difficult to do by force of authority.
The Church might also want to be careful regarding what values it encourages in its Eastern parts of the world since it already knows by example of the West where sudden jumps in tradition can lead one.
A
anp1215
Guest
It’s always strange to me when people talk about how all of the boys left altar serving when girls became allowed because we have about 50/50 in my parish. Same with EMHCs.
J
JReducation
Guest
I disagree with him on all three counts.
St.Bernard:
He have gave birth to the largest monastic movement in the history of the Church. He reformed the Benedictine Order. The Cistercians were born from St. Bernard and they became a force to be reckoned with. Out of them came the Trappists. Also during the same period there were founded the Trinitarians, the Carmelites, Franciscans, Dominicans, Norbetines and Servites of which were male religious orders.
Scholasticism:
Scholasticism came in several wrappers. There was Aquinas, the most famous and influential of the Scholastics, but not the only one and certainly did not influence everyone. There was Bonaventure who influenced the Franciscans. Franciscans did not study Aquinas until the 1950s. Yet, Franciscans were always a much larger religious family than Dominicans. The Augustinian,Carmelite and Franciscan movements were scholastic, while at the same time ascetical and mystical. You have great names like: Bernard, Bonaventure, Leonard of Port Maurice, Francisco of Osuna, Peter of Alcantara, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and Brother Lawrence.
The women’s movement of the Middle Ages:
The only big women’s movement of the Middle Ages was the Franciscan movement, also known as the Poor Clares. It is true that Francis of Assisi mandated that Franciscan women must never be subordinate to a man, be they Franciscan nuns or Secular Franciscan women who were married, But Francis of Assisi, Clare of Assisi, Agnes of Prague and Elizabeth of Hungary were not feminists by any stretch of the imagination.
The reason for this ruling was to protect women. Many of the women who entered religious life, including Clare, came from the nobility and many of the male superiors, including Francis, came from the merchant class. The merchant class delighted in nothing more than subordinating the nobility. The class struggles were in full force by the 13th century. The first women to become Franciscan nuns came from the nobility. The first women to become Secular Franciscans also came from the nobility. Whereas most of the friars came from the wealthy merchant class.
There was never an explosion of women’s orders. The writer doesn’t even have his language correct. With St.Vincent de Paul there was the explosion of the sisterhood. The sisters were not nuns, nor did they belong to religious orders and they are still not nuns and they still don’t belong to religious orders. Only nuns can belong to religious orders. Nuns are very few. The explosion of religious congregations and societies of women began in the 17th century, not during the Middle Ages. The only communities of women that really “exploded” during the Middle Ages were the Poor Clares and the Dominican Nuns. The others grew at a slow and steady pace, but nothing to write home about.
The religious sisters exploded, precisely because what they did, not priest wanted to do. They changed bandages, diapers, cleaned vomit, taught children, raised orphans, wiped the butts of the elderly poor who had no one to care for them. Priests believed that these things were beneath their dignity, probably because they were men, more so than because they were priests. The only priests in history who were famous for doing this kind of grunge ministry were St. Francis of Assisi, St. John of God, St. Camillus, St. Vincent de Paul, and St. John Bosco. We still don’t have men willing to do this kind of ministry.
The assertion that the Protestant Reformation was a reaction to femininity in Catholicism is suspicious at best. Luther accused the Church of many things, most of which were true, but femininity was not one of them. Luther, Calvin and Wesley’s reformation were more the product of scrupulosity. Their attempt was to return to what was sure, which meant a return to sola scriptura. We all know about the Anglican Reformation. That was all about politics. Henry needed a male heir to keep control of England and its territories. The wealth of the Church in England was not to be ignored either. He has spent the Tudor money and was desperate. A Tudor queen could secure the royal line, but not the royal purse, since English law said that a woman’s personal wealth became her husband’s property upon marriage.
This summary is way off the historical mark. I’d like to see the book to see if it really says what this summary claims it says. I can’t believe that a scholar would mess up history that badly.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
St.Bernard:
He have gave birth to the largest monastic movement in the history of the Church. He reformed the Benedictine Order. The Cistercians were born from St. Bernard and they became a force to be reckoned with. Out of them came the Trappists. Also during the same period there were founded the Trinitarians, the Carmelites, Franciscans, Dominicans, Norbetines and Servites of which were male religious orders.
Scholasticism:
Scholasticism came in several wrappers. There was Aquinas, the most famous and influential of the Scholastics, but not the only one and certainly did not influence everyone. There was Bonaventure who influenced the Franciscans. Franciscans did not study Aquinas until the 1950s. Yet, Franciscans were always a much larger religious family than Dominicans. The Augustinian,Carmelite and Franciscan movements were scholastic, while at the same time ascetical and mystical. You have great names like: Bernard, Bonaventure, Leonard of Port Maurice, Francisco of Osuna, Peter of Alcantara, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and Brother Lawrence.
The women’s movement of the Middle Ages:
The only big women’s movement of the Middle Ages was the Franciscan movement, also known as the Poor Clares. It is true that Francis of Assisi mandated that Franciscan women must never be subordinate to a man, be they Franciscan nuns or Secular Franciscan women who were married, But Francis of Assisi, Clare of Assisi, Agnes of Prague and Elizabeth of Hungary were not feminists by any stretch of the imagination.
The reason for this ruling was to protect women. Many of the women who entered religious life, including Clare, came from the nobility and many of the male superiors, including Francis, came from the merchant class. The merchant class delighted in nothing more than subordinating the nobility. The class struggles were in full force by the 13th century. The first women to become Franciscan nuns came from the nobility. The first women to become Secular Franciscans also came from the nobility. Whereas most of the friars came from the wealthy merchant class.
There was never an explosion of women’s orders. The writer doesn’t even have his language correct. With St.Vincent de Paul there was the explosion of the sisterhood. The sisters were not nuns, nor did they belong to religious orders and they are still not nuns and they still don’t belong to religious orders. Only nuns can belong to religious orders. Nuns are very few. The explosion of religious congregations and societies of women began in the 17th century, not during the Middle Ages. The only communities of women that really “exploded” during the Middle Ages were the Poor Clares and the Dominican Nuns. The others grew at a slow and steady pace, but nothing to write home about.
The religious sisters exploded, precisely because what they did, not priest wanted to do. They changed bandages, diapers, cleaned vomit, taught children, raised orphans, wiped the butts of the elderly poor who had no one to care for them. Priests believed that these things were beneath their dignity, probably because they were men, more so than because they were priests. The only priests in history who were famous for doing this kind of grunge ministry were St. Francis of Assisi, St. John of God, St. Camillus, St. Vincent de Paul, and St. John Bosco. We still don’t have men willing to do this kind of ministry.
The assertion that the Protestant Reformation was a reaction to femininity in Catholicism is suspicious at best. Luther accused the Church of many things, most of which were true, but femininity was not one of them. Luther, Calvin and Wesley’s reformation were more the product of scrupulosity. Their attempt was to return to what was sure, which meant a return to sola scriptura. We all know about the Anglican Reformation. That was all about politics. Henry needed a male heir to keep control of England and its territories. The wealth of the Church in England was not to be ignored either. He has spent the Tudor money and was desperate. A Tudor queen could secure the royal line, but not the royal purse, since English law said that a woman’s personal wealth became her husband’s property upon marriage.
This summary is way off the historical mark. I’d like to see the book to see if it really says what this summary claims it says. I can’t believe that a scholar would mess up history that badly.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
H
HelenRose
Guest
And whose fault is that? No one makes a man walk out - either from the Church or from the home.
I contend that men have walked out and then women have had to step up to the plate.
M
mick321
Guest
Mission accomplished.I disagree with him on all three counts.
St.Bernard:
He have gave birth to the largest monastic movement in the history of the Church. He reformed the Benedictine Order. The Cistercians were born from St. Bernard and they became a force to be reckoned with. Out of them came the Trappists. Also during the same period there were founded the Trinitarians, the Carmelites, Franciscans, Dominicans, Norbetines and Servites of which were male religious orders.
Scholasticism:
Scholasticism came in several wrappers. There was Aquinas, the most famous and influential of the Scholastics, but not the only one and certainly did not influence everyone. There was Bonaventure who influenced the Franciscans. Franciscans did not study Aquinas until the 1950s. Yet, Franciscans were always a much larger religious family than Dominicans. The Augustinian,Carmelite and Franciscan movements were scholastic, while at the same time ascetical and mystical. You have great names like: Bernard, Bonaventure, Leonard of Port Maurice, Francisco of Osuna, Peter of Alcantara, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and Brother Lawrence.
The women’s movement of the Middle Ages:
The only big women’s movement of the Middle Ages was the Franciscan movement, also known as the Poor Clares. It is true that Francis of Assisi mandated that Franciscan women must never be subordinate to a man, be they Franciscan nuns or Secular Franciscan women who were married, But Francis of Assisi, Clare of Assisi, Agnes of Prague and Elizabeth of Hungary were not feminists by any stretch of the imagination.
The reason for this ruling was to protect women. Many of the women who entered religious life, including Clare, came from the nobility and many of the male superiors, including Francis, came from the merchant class. The merchant class delighted in nothing more than subordinating the nobility. The class struggles were in full force by the 13th century. The first women to become Franciscan nuns came from the nobility. The first women to become Secular Franciscans also came from the nobility. Whereas most of the friars came from the wealthy merchant class.
There was never an explosion of women’s orders. The writer doesn’t even have his language correct. With St.Vincent de Paul there was the explosion of the sisterhood. The sisters were not nuns, nor did they belong to religious orders and they are still not nuns and they still don’t belong to religious orders. Only nuns can belong to religious orders. Nuns are very few. The explosion of religious congregations and societies of women began in the 17th century, not during the Middle Ages. The only communities of women that really “exploded” during the Middle Ages were the Poor Clares and the Dominican Nuns. The others grew at a slow and steady pace, but nothing to write home about.
The religious sisters exploded, precisely because what they did, not priest wanted to do. They changed bandages, diapers, cleaned vomit, taught children, raised orphans, wiped the butts of the elderly poor who had no one to care for them. Priests believed that these things were beneath their dignity, probably because they were men, more so than because they were priests. The only priests in history who were famous for doing this kind of grunge ministry were St. Francis of Assisi, St. John of God, St. Camillus, St. Vincent de Paul, and St. John Bosco. We still don’t have men willing to do this kind of ministry.
The assertion that the Protestant Reformation was a reaction to femininity in Catholicism is suspicious at best. Luther accused the Church of many things, most of which were true, but femininity was not one of them. Luther, Calvin and Wesley’s reformation were more the product of scrupulosity. Their attempt was to return to what was sure, which meant a return to sola scriptura. We all know about the Anglican Reformation. That was all about politics. Henry needed a male heir to keep control of England and its territories. The wealth of the Church in England was not to be ignored either. He has spent the Tudor money and was desperate. A Tudor queen could secure the royal line, but not the royal purse, since English law said that a woman’s personal wealth became her husband’s property upon marriage.
This summary is way off the historical mark. I’d like to see the book to see if it really says what this summary claims it says. I can’t believe that a scholar would mess up history that badly.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity
amazon.com/The-Church-Impotent-Feminization-Christianity/dp/1890626198/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
Anxiously awaiting YOUR review.
In Christ.
B
ballin
Guest
I think the book you promote seems to actually be pretty sexist.
But regardless, seems to miss a simple point. Just the passage you quoted seems to say that Heroic nature is not part of a woman. The Blessed Virgin Mary, Esther, Ruth, Judith for an example are all Heroes. The last three were actually Heroes of Ancient Israel.
So the author of the book, the “problem of the Church” seems to have existed even prior to the coming of Christ in the faith of Israel it-self. Since Jesus was never rejected these ideas of Israel, so maybe its not an anomaly but part of the very identity of the Church that Jesus meant to found!
B
ballin
Guest
Just wondering out loud here, having more women in Church roles can be beneficial as a way for Catholic men to meet good Catholic women.
Given that these women aren’t doing something banned by the church, it would be great to be married to someone who takes their faith seriously!
- Status