women's authority in the church

[mick321]

They can certainly teach, look at Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Siena and Therese the Little Flower. They are Doctors, which means that they are teachers of the Church.

Today, they teach in seminaries, schools of theology, conferences and many settings. The changes in the OF were taught to our priests by a woman theologian. The professor of sacramental theology that I had in Roman was a lay Opus Dei woman. She was training all priests and religious to celebrate the sacraments and the meaning of the sacraments.

Maybe the word that you’re looking for is preach as in preaching in the liturgy. Because they can preach retreats and they can preach in non liturgical functions. There is a provision for women religious to preach during the LOTH, if they are in solemn vows.

They certainly teach as many priests teach. They are spiritual directors, retreat masters and even chaplains.

I believe that the Benedictine nuns were the first women spiritual directors and retreat masters. They have been doing this for more than 1000 years. The Bennies are pretty old. Today, there are many lay women doing this kind of preaching and teaching. One of the groups that has the largest number of women preachers and theologians is Opus Dei. At my alma mater in Rome,which is run by Opus Dei, many of our professors were lay women theologians. They were all Opus Dei. You know that they were very orthodox.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

It’s obvious YOU thought they were.

Where’s that book review?
.

 

[severus68]

If we study Western monasticism, we find that there is a reason why Benedictine abbesses wear a pectoral cross and some carry a crosier. There was a time when dioceses were so large that the local clergy rarely saw the bishop. They got their marching orders from the local Benedictine abbess. She would preside at many liturgical functions by sitting on the side wearing a pectoral cross and holding a crosier. The secular clergy of the day was not as well educated as the nuns were. Bishops gave the abbess the authority to rule over the clergy instead of appointing a Vicar from among the clergy.

Among the Jewish Christians in Rome, they continued the Jewish custom of the mother being the keeper of the faith. The women hosted the Eucharistic gatherings until they became simpler and simpler that the mass could be celebrated over the tombs of the martyrs instead of private home.

There has been a long standing law in the Church that among religious, women cannot be superiors to men, but men can be superiors to women. This was dispensed in the case of St. Bridgette and her two orders of male and females.

Something similar happened in the Franciscan family. The male Franciscans are not allowed to become involved in the affairs of the Poor Clares, because Francis said that no woman should ever be submissive to a man. The tradition was passed on. When the first nuns left St.Clare’s side to start new houses, Clare gave them autonomy as soon as they could stand on their own. She did not govern them. The Poor Clares are the only Franciscan Order that does not have a superior general or congregations, as do the Benedictines. The reason was to protect the freedom and authority of the abbess of each house.

If you’re a priest and you go to a Poor Clare house to celebrate mass, guess what? The abbess tells you what missal you’re going to use and what form you’re going to use. The priest does not get to decide. He’s on her turf and she has no obligation to submit to any male. This is what gave Mother Angelica so much freedom from the bishops. She’s a Poor Clare abbess. She can’t be touched by any male authority except the pope.

We’re talking about hundreds of years of tradition where women have held great power over males and over the laity, all the way back to the early Benedictines to the current Poor Clares.

Lay women also exercised a great deal of power in the Church. Let’s not forget Queen Isabella of Spain. The bishops reported to her. The Church could do nothing in the kingdom without permission from the crown. It was a rather interesting relationship. The Church ratified the succession of the monarchs and the monarchs dictated to the Church. In cases such as Spain where they did not have the male line of succession that other countries follow, if the monarch was a woman, so be it. She had the power.

In Isabella’s case it was fascinating, because she was married to a king with his own kingdom. Although they brought together the power of the Kingdoms of Castille, Leon, and Arragon, Isabella continued to govern Castille and Leon. The clergy in both kingdoms answered to her.

The history of women in the Church is very interesting. It’s not as the Irish, German and Italian immigrant Catholics painted it to their American descendants. I believe that may have had more to do with the fact that most of these immigrants were peasants. In peasant culture a woman’s realm of authority was different from that of the aristocracy or even the merchant classes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

This is all very interesting and educational. Thank you.

 

[Sarabande]

If we study Western monasticism, we find that there is a reason why Benedictine abbesses wear a pectoral cross and some carry a crosier. There was a time when dioceses were so large that the local clergy rarely saw the bishop. They got their marching orders from the local Benedictine abbess. She would preside at many liturgical functions by sitting on the side wearing a pectoral cross and holding a crosier. The secular clergy of the day was not as well educated as the nuns were. Bishops gave the abbess the authority to rule over the clergy instead of appointing a Vicar from among the clergy.

Among the Jewish Christians in Rome, they continued the Jewish custom of the mother being the keeper of the faith. The women hosted the Eucharistic gatherings until they became simpler and simpler that the mass could be celebrated over the tombs of the martyrs instead of private home.

There has been a long standing law in the Church that among religious, women cannot be superiors to men, but men can be superiors to women. This was dispensed in the case of St. Bridgette and her two orders of male and females.

Something similar happened in the Franciscan family. The male Franciscans are not allowed to become involved in the affairs of the Poor Clares, because Francis said that no woman should ever be submissive to a man. The tradition was passed on. When the first nuns left St.Clare’s side to start new houses, Clare gave them autonomy as soon as they could stand on their own. She did not govern them. The Poor Clares are the only Franciscan Order that does not have a superior general or congregations, as do the Benedictines. The reason was to protect the freedom and authority of the abbess of each house.

If you’re a priest and you go to a Poor Clare house to celebrate mass, guess what? The abbess tells you what missal you’re going to use and what form you’re going to use. The priest does not get to decide. He’s on her turf and she has no obligation to submit to any male. This is what gave Mother Angelica so much freedom from the bishops. She’s a Poor Clare abbess. She can’t be touched by any male authority except the pope.

We’re talking about hundreds of years of tradition where women have held great power over males and over the laity, all the way back to the early Benedictines to the current Poor Clares.

Lay women also exercised a great deal of power in the Church. Let’s not forget Queen Isabella of Spain. The bishops reported to her. The Church could do nothing in the kingdom without permission from the crown. It was a rather interesting relationship. The Church ratified the succession of the monarchs and the monarchs dictated to the Church. In cases such as Spain where they did not have the male line of succession that other countries follow, if the monarch was a woman, so be it. She had the power.

In Isabella’s case it was fascinating, because she was married to a king with his own kingdom. Although they brought together the power of the Kingdoms of Castille, Leon, and Arragon, Isabella continued to govern Castille and Leon. The clergy in both kingdoms answered to her.

The history of women in the Church is very interesting. It’s not as the Irish, German and Italian immigrant Catholics painted it to their American descendants. I believe that may have had more to do with the fact that most of these immigrants were peasants. In peasant culture a woman’s realm of authority was different from that of the aristocracy or even the merchant classes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Incredibly interesting and fascinating!!! Are there are good books on this that you would recommend? I love history, especially in regards to women.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

If we study Western monasticism, we find that there is a reason why Benedictine abbesses wear a pectoral cross and some carry a crosier. There was a time when dioceses were so large that the local clergy rarely saw the bishop. They got their marching orders from the local Benedictine abbess. She would preside at many liturgical functions by sitting on the side wearing a pectoral cross and holding a crosier. The secular clergy of the day was not as well educated as the nuns were. Bishops gave the abbess the authority to rule over the clergy instead of appointing a Vicar from among the clergy.

Among the Jewish Christians in Rome, they continued the Jewish custom of the mother being the keeper of the faith. The women hosted the Eucharistic gatherings until they became simpler and simpler that the mass could be celebrated over the tombs of the martyrs instead of private home.

There has been a long standing law in the Church that among religious, women cannot be superiors to men, but men can be superiors to women. This was dispensed in the case of St. Bridgette and her two orders of male and females.

Something similar happened in the Franciscan family. The male Franciscans are not allowed to become involved in the affairs of the Poor Clares, because Francis said that no woman should ever be submissive to a man. The tradition was passed on. When the first nuns left St.Clare’s side to start new houses, Clare gave them autonomy as soon as they could stand on their own. She did not govern them. The Poor Clares are the only Franciscan Order that does not have a superior general or congregations, as do the Benedictines. The reason was to protect the freedom and authority of the abbess of each house.

If you’re a priest and you go to a Poor Clare house to celebrate mass, guess what? The abbess tells you what missal you’re going to use and what form you’re going to use. The priest does not get to decide. He’s on her turf and she has no obligation to submit to any male. This is what gave Mother Angelica so much freedom from the bishops. She’s a Poor Clare abbess. She can’t be touched by any male authority except the pope.

We’re talking about hundreds of years of tradition where women have held great power over males and over the laity, all the way back to the early Benedictines to the current Poor Clares.

Lay women also exercised a great deal of power in the Church. Let’s not forget Queen Isabella of Spain. The bishops reported to her. The Church could do nothing in the kingdom without permission from the crown. It was a rather interesting relationship. The Church ratified the succession of the monarchs and the monarchs dictated to the Church. In cases such as Spain where they did not have the male line of succession that other countries follow, if the monarch was a woman, so be it. She had the power.

In Isabella’s case it was fascinating, because she was married to a king with his own kingdom. Although they brought together the power of the Kingdoms of Castille, Leon, and Arragon, Isabella continued to govern Castille and Leon. The clergy in both kingdoms answered to her.

The history of women in the Church is very interesting. It’s not as the Irish, German and Italian immigrant Catholics painted it to their American descendants. I believe that may have had more to do with the fact that most of these immigrants were peasants. In peasant culture a woman’s realm of authority was different from that of the aristocracy or even the merchant classes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Thank you so much for your reply on this! It echoes what was presented at the talk I attended (and that monastery happens to be a Benedictine one). I have printed up your reply and put it with my notes from the conference. Any recommendations on books or sources out there for further reading?

 

[catholicmamajoy]

Incredibly interesting and fascinating!!! Are there are good books on this that you would recommend? I love history, especially in regards to women.

Agreed!

 

[JReducation]

You know . . . with so much being written on women in the Church, there must be some books out there that pull all of this together. I’m an old man who can barely read and write. When I went through my STD (degree, not disease) it was the early 70s. Women’s studies were not even a dream yet. We picked up this stuff in bits and pieces in Church History and History of Religious life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[zab]

catholicfreeshipping.com/Products/cfs_gensym-227.html
Femine Free & Faithful by Rhonda Chervin

**Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism ** by Donna Steichen
rtforum.org/lt/lt53.html

 

[JReducation]

catholicfreeshipping.com/Products/cfs_gensym-227.html
Femine Free & Faithful by Rhonda Chervin

This title sounds interesting and the professor has credibility.

**Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism ** by Donna Steichen
rtforum.org/lt/lt53.html

This book, I’ve read. The writer has an agenda. I wouldn’t recommend it to any good Catholic.

Neither these speaks to the question about women exercising authority and their influence in Church history.

What is needed is an objective work on Catholic women from then to now.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Francis said that no woman should ever be submissive to a man.

Brother JR, was St. Francis talking about religious life or about married life as well?

Because if he meant to included married life, that would seem to contradict St. Paul in Scripture.

 

[mick321]

You know . . . with so much being written on women in the Church, there must be some books out there that pull all of this together. I’m an old man who can barely read and write. When I went through my STD (degree, not disease) it was the early 70s. Women’s studies were not even a dream yet. We picked up this stuff in bits and pieces in Church History and History of Religious life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Asked and answered.

See post #120.

Still waiting on your review.

 

[zab]

This title sounds interesting and the professor has credibility.
Regarding: Feminine, Free, and Faithful by Rhonda Chervin

This book, I’ve read. The writer has an agenda. I wouldn’t recommend it to any good Catholic.
Regarding: Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Feminism by Donna Steichen
Neither these speaks to the question about women exercising authority and their influence in Church history.

What is needed is an objective work on Catholic women from then to now.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I have read both of these books , although it has been many years ago. I just remember that I found both of them very helpful in trying to understand what I was having to deal with at the time that I was a volunteer in prison ministry. There was a lot of influence of creation spirituality and other influences the were brought in, as well as a distortion of Catholic teaching on issues like the practice of homosexuality and the use of contraception. Rhonda Chervon, whom you mentioned had credibility actually recommended Donna Steichen’s book, Ungodly Rage
ignatius.com/Products/UR-E/ungodly-rage.aspx

 

[Armyvet007]

Br. JR,

Thank you for your educational posts.

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR, was St. Francis talking about religious life or about married life as well?

Because if he meant to included married life, that would seem to contradict St. Paul in Scripture.

He includes all women. However, he does not contradict St. Paul at all. Francis is very Pauline and has an insight into Paul that many of us do “amateur” biblical scholars lack. Including me. He takes pall in context. Woman and Church go together. Male and Christ go together. Salvation comes to us from Christ through the Church. The Church is not submissive to Christ, she is his instrument and his body. Therefore, men and women must related to each other in the same manner as Christ and the Church relate to each other. We see this played out in his relationship with the many women in his life. He always treats them as he does the Church and he expects from them to be like the Church. His expectations of males and female are actually very Pauline and very demanding.

Francis understood that the word “submit” as used in Paul’s writings does not mean to be submissive. It means to cooperate with as the Church cooperates with Christ. Christians introduced their own cultural baggage into what Paul taught and turned women into children rather than partners. Francis was not going to have that, because that was contrary to what Paul and Genesis teach.

Asked and answered.

See post #120.

Still waiting on your review.

I responded in post 125

If you wish to have a conversation with me, please speak plainly or do not respond to my posts. Responding to people with one liners and images does not promote a dialogue.

I have read both of these books , although it has been many years ago. I just remember that I found both of them very helpful in trying to understand what I was having to deal with at the time that I was a volunteer in prison ministry. There was a lot of influence of creation spirituality and other influences the were brought in, as well as a distortion of Catholic teaching on issues like the practice of homosexuality and the use of contraception. Rhonda Chervon, whom you mentioned had credibility actually recommended Donna Steichen’s book, Ungodly Rage
ignatius.com/Products/UR-E/ungodly-rage.aspx

Maybe I should have read Chervon first; but I didn’t know about her book until now. I know about her. She works for the Franciscans. It may have helped me make more sense of Steichen. When I put Steichen down I was not sure if she was angry at the world or if she was critical of the current feminist movement. I felt that it was not a good book for the average Catholic, because her position did not come through very clearly.

Had I had something to go on, it may have made much more sense to me. I have to admit that sometimes I’ll read a book and walk away asking, “What did he just say?” Then along comes someone else and tells me it was the best thing since sliced bread, only to find out that they read something else, before reading the book that I hated.

Then I go back and read what I call the prerequisite, which helps put the other into perspective.

When Ungodly Rage came out, it was the book to read, it never occurred to me that one needed some references to understand where the author was going. Now that you mention having the one first and then the other, That may be what I missed.

I’ll have to pick up the Chervon book. Thanks for sharing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ballin]

He includes all women. However, he does not contradict St. Paul at all. Francis is very Pauline and has an insight into Paul that many of us do “amateur” biblical scholars lack. Including me. He takes pall in context. Woman and Church go together. Male and Christ go together. Salvation comes to us from Christ through the Church. The Church is not submissive to Christ, she is his instrument and his body. Therefore, men and women must related to each other in the same manner as Christ and the Church relate to each other. We see this played out in his relationship with the many women in his life. He always treats them as he does the Church and he expects from them to be like the Church. His expectations of males and female are actually very Pauline and very demanding.

Really? I think you might be taking this analogy too far, no? As far as I understand, the Church does submit to Christ.

Something that we all need to keep in mind is that there is a difference between what St. Francis asserts in his teaching and what it literally means, right? While the assertion of his teachings are cleared to be free from errors, the literal meaning of it might not be.

For an example,

Objection 1. It seems that not every lie is a sin. For it is evident that the evangelists did not sin in the writing of the Gospel. Yet they seem to have told something false: since their accounts of the words of Christ and of others often differ from one another: wherefore seemingly one of them must have given an untrue account. Therefore not every lie is a sin.

Reply to Objection 1. It is unlawful to hold that any false assertion is contained either in the Gospel or in any canonical Scripture, or that the writers thereof have told untruths, because faith would be deprived of its certitude which is based on the authority of Holy Writ. That the words of certain people are variously reported in the Gospel and other sacred writings does not constitute a lie. Hence Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. ii): “He that has the wit to understand that in order to know the truth it is necessary to get at the sense, will conclude that he must not be the least troubled, no matter by what words that sense is expressed.” Hence it is evident, as he adds (De Consens. Evang. ii), that “we must not judge that someone is lying, if several persons fail to describe in the same way and in the same words a thing which they remember to have seen or heard.” – (Summa Theologiae 2a–2ae, q. 110, art. 3, reply obj. 1).

 

[JReducation]

Really? I think you might be taking this analogy too far, no? As far as I understand, the Church does submit to Christ.

Something that we all need to keep in mind is that there is a difference between what St. Francis asserts in his teaching and what it literally means, right? While the assertion of his teachings are cleared to be free from errors, the literal meaning of it might not be.

Not if you understand the Church the way that he understands it and if you understand the term submit the way he understands it. You must put yourself in his place using language as he uses it. Of this I am very sure about. I’ve been teaching Franciscan Theology more than 20 years.

In Franciscan Theology, the Church conforms to Christ as the body conforms to the head.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ballin]

Not if you understand the Church the way that he understands it and if you understand the term submit the way he understands it. You must put yourself in his place using language as he uses it. Of this I am very sure about. I’ve been teaching Franciscan Theology more than 20 years.

In Franciscan Theology, the Church conforms to Christ as the body conforms to the head.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

So what does it mean in Ephesians when it says the Church submits to Christ? Is St. Francis replacing the word submit with conform?

 

[ballin]

Bl. John Paul II states in MULIERIS DIGNITATEM regarding Ephesians 5:22-23

However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.

The above seems to assert that there is an actual “subjection” rather than a conformity, no?

 

[JReducation]

So what does it mean in Ephesians when it says the Church submits to Christ? Is St. Francis replacing the word submit with conform?

The intent of that word is conform. In today’s language the term submit has taken a different meaning. To conform conveys the essence of love. To submission can be compliance, not love. This is not what Paul is talking about, but to many people that’s what submission means. Paul is talking about intimate love.

The best way to understand how Francis understands Paul is observing how he deals with the women in his life and how the Franciscan family deals with women. I’ll give you a few examples.

While other communities of women have had male superiors, Franciscan women have never had male superiors.

While other communities of men are not allowed to have female superiors, Franciscan men have had a number of female superiors.

The Secular Franciscan Order was the first real order founded for secular men and women. These included priests. However, women were always allowed to hold the office of Superior General, even if they had priests and other men under them. This goes back to the 13th century.

The married couples who joined the Secular Franciscans had to a) both join or b) if one joined the other had to give consent. Husbands could not join without the permission of their wives and vis a vis. There was always parity.

Clare was Francis’ spiritual director at one point in his life, something unknown in the 13th century. She was also the voice of reason when Francis became confused. That was also unknown in that time. Women kept their opinions to themselves, especially in the Church.

Men were not allowed to enter the cloister of the sisters, but women were allowed to enter the friary as long a they were close friends or relatives. There is nothing in the friars’ rule against it. But there is in the sisters’ rule.

The three orders held chapters and elected their superiors without the ratification of the friars. That was not allowed in the Church until Francis came along. Even the Dominicans, to this day, the Master General over the entire family must be male and is only one person, not one for each order.

Throughout history, the friars have always worked with many women as equals, never as authority over them.

If you take a look at EWTN, Mother Angelica always had authority over the friars, but not the friars had no say over the nuns or over EWTN.

Look at the Franciscans of the Renewal. They are male and female, but the sisters or not submissive to the friars.

Look at the Secular Franciscans, there are married couples, but the husbands are not allowed to submit their wives. That is forbidden by the rule. The relationship is one of love that conforms to the other, no one of compliance for the sake of compliance.

We have to be very careful how we read that word, “submit”, because it has taken on a meaning that is not very loving and is far from what Paul had in mind.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ballin]

The intent of that word is conform. In today’s language the term submit has taken a different meaning. To conform conveys the essence of love. To submission can be compliance, not love. This is not what Paul is talking about, but to many people that’s what submission means. Paul is talking about intimate love.

The best way to understand how Francis understands Paul is observing how he deals with the women in his life and how the Franciscan family deals with women. I’ll give you a few examples.

While other communities of women have had male superiors, Franciscan women have never had male superiors.

While other communities of men are not allowed to have female superiors, Franciscan men have had a number of female superiors.

The Secular Franciscan Order was the first real order founded for secular men and women. These included priests. However, women were always allowed to hold the office of Superior General, even if they had priests and other men under them. This goes back to the 13th century.

The married couples who joined the Secular Franciscans had to a) both join or b) if one joined the other had to give consent. Husbands could not join without the permission of their wives and vis a vis. There was always parity.

Clare was Francis’ spiritual director at one point in his life, something unknown in the 13th century. She was also the voice of reason when Francis became confused. That was also unknown in that time. Women kept their opinions to themselves, especially in the Church.

Men were not allowed to enter the cloister of the sisters, but women were allowed to enter the friary as long a they were close friends or relatives. There is nothing in the friars’ rule against it. But there is in the sisters’ rule.

The three orders held chapters and elected their superiors without the ratification of the friars. That was not allowed in the Church until Francis came along. Even the Dominicans, to this day, the Master General over the entire family must be male and is only one person, not one for each order.

Throughout history, the friars have always worked with many women as equals, never as authority over them.

If you take a look at EWTN, Mother Angelica always had authority over the friars, but not the friars had no say over the nuns or over EWTN.

Look at the Franciscans of the Renewal. They are male and female, but the sisters or not submissive to the friars.

Look at the Secular Franciscans, there are married couples, but the husbands are not allowed to submit their wives. That is forbidden by the rule. The relationship is one of love that conforms to the other, no one of compliance for the sake of compliance.

We have to be very careful how we read that word, “submit”, because it has taken on a meaning that is not very loving and is far from what Paul had in mind.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

But isn’t the end result the same as ‘subject’? In the end, one has to still agree with the other? So in the case of the Church, it must always agree with Christ?

It feels as if the word “Conform” is merely used as a synonym here when the end result described is the same as “submit”?

 

[JReducation]

Bl. John Paul II states in MULIERIS DIGNITATEM regarding Ephesians 5:22-23

The above seems to assert that there is an actual “subjection” rather than a conformity, no?

Subjection means the same as conform. In the relationship between Christ and the Church, it is the Church that conforms to Christ, not Christ to the Church. In marriage, it is mutual.

There is the difference between this concept and submission. Bl. John Paul is trying to get to clearer understanding of what Paul means and get away from the distortion that has happened over the centuries, where submit has become compliance for the sake of compliance. In other words, its all about power and authority and very little about love.

The fact is that we’re not going to find the perfect word that describes what Paul is trying to say. We can only explain the original intent as language evolves and words take on different meanings.

Going back to Francis, you have to remember what the word submission mean during the Middle Ages. There was noting loving about it. It was oppressive and usually an abuse of strength and power. Francis knew this was not how Paul was using the word. Paul was using it as Genesis describes the creation of man and woman. Woman was created for man’s good, not to be man’s subordinate.

Do you see the difference?

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV