O
O.S.Luke
Guest
If that’s true - then women have no business teaching men. One of Paul’s letters was clear about that. And their heads should be covered in worship.
- Status
H
Harpazo
Guest
If I may interject, that’s how it is in my Church!
I have noticed that they are just as happy, if not more happy than those women in a church that practices WO. They know their role and don’t feel like they have anything to prove to anyone. 
In Christ,
Andrew
D
djeter
Guest
*To be human means to be-in-relation, to be-with. Even more pointedly, it is something which is radically from others. It is essential that we recognize our real relationality, a truth often obscured by classical theology which, following Boethius, stressed the radical individuality of persons (the human being is an “individual substance of a rational nature”).
This truth has also been forgotten by much modern thought since the Enlightenment, which stressed the freedom, rights and autonomy of the individual human subject. What and who my real “self” is, is a mystery which is constituted by the mystery of others.
This means that my humanity is something always profoundly greater, even other, than I am. Sexual differentiation highlights this. Scholars in a variety of disciplines have begun to take seriously what the poets and song writers have always told us: men and women seem to experience and understand reality in some remarkably different ways.
Christian theology has tended to ignore this, treating human “nature” independently of its sexual concretization. While there is much that we can say about being human which is true about both men and women, perhaps we are only now beginning to realize that there is much which cannot be said quite so simply. Each of us, male or female, must realize the fact that there is another mode and experience of being human which is different from, and not reducible to, one’s own. There is another way of being human which remains inaccessibly mysterious.
Therefore, no human being can claim to experience or understand the mystery of what it means to be human only from his or her humanity. The real humanity of each person, male or female, is something that points beyond itself to a real other. This is a paradox. Male and female are not simply accidental characteristics of human being; neither are they two different creatures. They are irreducibly different in one humanity.
This, it seems to me, expresses something of the mystery of God and about our relationship with God. The mystery of the sexually other human is a symbol of the absolute mystery of God’s other-ness and of our relatedness to and transcendence towards God as our final personal wholeness and fulfillment. Our humanity is essentially ecstatic, other-directed. We are whole and entire only in our relationships with others: both human others and with God, that divine Other.*
From The Christian View of Humanity by John Sachs
I would submit the views above, based upon scripture, are a lot closer to what the Church believes than your “Bible teaches” Maureen Dowd-ism.
If you are familiar with Ms. Dowd’s most recent attack on the Church, perhaps you might entertain this reply and learn how the past 40 years have vindicated a Pope who had his heart broken by late night comics and cafeteria Catholics.
It brings in many of the issues you are dealing with here and tells you how it all came about. Are you familiar with The Lambeth Conference Of 1930 And The Rise Of The Modern Gay-Rights Movement? It’s sort of like “The Rest of the Story…”
You can find it here:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/10/27/a-catholic-vindication/
dj
L
livi
Guest
The Apostles were the first priests, and Jesus only chose men to be his disciples. To me, that’s the end of the argument right there. And for the record, I am a Catholic woman and I do not believe women should be ordained priests. It doesn’t mean I think of myself as a second class citizen, it just means I do not believe women should be priests.
H
Harpazo
Guest
I see what you are saying. I would say that ‘equal to the apostles’ does not mean that they were the original apostles, which is what those who argue against WO are saying. From what I understand about the Catholic position, is that it is not that the Catholic Church doesn’t want to ordain women, but it says it does not have the authority to do so. Is that correct?
In Christ,
Andrew
In Christ,
Andrew
E
edwest2
Guest
I don’t think Paul was saying anything other than what the Holy Spirit of God was moving him to say. To assign his words to a particular time and culture ignores the fact that fundamentally, man has not changed since the Bible was written. One major power failure and all that high-tech goes out the window.
The Catholic Church has no authority to ordain women. It was established by Christ, not men.
Peace,
Ed
The Catholic Church has no authority to ordain women. It was established by Christ, not men.
Peace,
Ed
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
The difference --and I speak as a woman here 
–is between ‘teach’ and “Teach” so to speak. Of course we woman are the primary teachers of our children, for example; of course we can also ‘teach’ in the secular world, etc. But I think it is fair to note that even those women who are (rightly) Doctors of the Church did not presume to ‘teach’ in the way that men do. And I also think it is fair to say that an example of how women’s teaching can go awry would be in the most radical terms say of feminism. The teaching becomes divisive. The arguments tend to go to the emotional rather than to the purely rational.
–is between ‘teach’ and “Teach” so to speak. Of course we woman are the primary teachers of our children, for example; of course we can also ‘teach’ in the secular world, etc. But I think it is fair to note that even those women who are (rightly) Doctors of the Church did not presume to ‘teach’ in the way that men do. And I also think it is fair to say that an example of how women’s teaching can go awry would be in the most radical terms say of feminism. The teaching becomes divisive. The arguments tend to go to the emotional rather than to the purely rational.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Ok. What’s your point? Sounds ok to me.
E
emeraldcoast
Guest
:slapfight:Ok. What’s your point? Sounds ok to me.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
dun-da-dun dunt! (Dragnet sound)
L
Libertarian_FL
Guest
What did JESUS say on this matter, did he ever openly support or not support women as disciples? Taking His ministry and life, not the Apostles or Paul but Jesus I would say this. It doesn’t matter. Before God and He said this there is no male or female, slave or rich, Jew or Gentile isn’t this the case show me once where Jesus didn’t honor men, women and even foreigners that honored His teachings and God. Why would a woman minister powered and filled with the Holy Spirit not be His instrument if called to such service due to the biase of His Apostles.
Why is there this view against women ministers? It was due to the biase they had culturally they never led by the example of Jesus Christ who could have and likely did have many women disciples.
God the Father in the OT called prophetesses (prophetesses seem to me that they have gifts of prophecy and to tell men what to do as God’s instrument) one danced and sang as they left Egypt in the Exodus, women judges one highly honored and should I mention women elevated to serve Him such as Esther. Its pretty clear what private parts one has is not an issue if one looks at this in the simple perspective that God will choose who He wants and we better respect that.
Why can you say a woman cannot teach men when they in the past could rule over them or question the blessings of a women’s viewpoint in the ministry as leading of the faith.
Why is there this view against women ministers? It was due to the biase they had culturally they never led by the example of Jesus Christ who could have and likely did have many women disciples.
God the Father in the OT called prophetesses (prophetesses seem to me that they have gifts of prophecy and to tell men what to do as God’s instrument) one danced and sang as they left Egypt in the Exodus, women judges one highly honored and should I mention women elevated to serve Him such as Esther. Its pretty clear what private parts one has is not an issue if one looks at this in the simple perspective that God will choose who He wants and we better respect that.
Why can you say a woman cannot teach men when they in the past could rule over them or question the blessings of a women’s viewpoint in the ministry as leading of the faith.
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
I also agree with you and I too am female. Let us go by the bible. Let us stay with the fact that there were 12Apostles who were men. It’s these women libbers who want to get their points across, yet don’t want to go by the bible.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Show me where Jesus ordained a woman to ministry in the NT. It doesn’t exist. You say several things that sound definite and concrete rather than your opinion. For example, “Why is there this view against women ministers? It was due to the bias they had culturally…” this is stated as some sort of fact? How do you pretend to know why Christ made the decisions he made? All we can do is look at the evidence. Jesus had two AMAZING women of faith in His life that really stand out: The Blessed Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene. Both are amazingly blessed and holy women. But they are not sent as ministers in any way. If any women ever deserved it, it’s these ladies! Are you implying that Christ was too scared or intimidated or cowardly to buck the system of his day? Your argument is that the culture was unfair and hateful toward women and gave them low status, virtual property, so then Jesus had to work within that framework. Poppycock! Jesus is a man who knocked over the money-changers in fury angering the business community outside the temple, risking His life. Jesus forgave adulterers, broke bread with gentiles, ate in the homes of tax collectors, befriended and forgave prostitutes, mingled with Romans (!!), declared Himself the Christ, the Son of God, forgave sins, worked on the Sabbath, ridiculed and blasted the Pharisees (the powers-that-be). After taking all that into account, if Jesus had felt women should be clergy, don’t you think this man of such bravery, courage, conviction, and integrity would’ve made it so? Your argument presupposes a subtle cowardice and moral weakness on the part of Our Lord that I’m not about to accept.
The other argument you make from the NT is Paul’s statement that we are “all equal in Christ, no Scythian, no Greek, no Phrygian, no male, no female,” etc. That entire passage is being taken out of context. The context is SALVATION, not ordination. Of course all women, men, gentiles, Jews, colors and creeds are equal salvifically. Ordination is another matter. I cannot give birth but my wife can. We are equal in salvation but not in the blessing of motherhood? Context, context, context…
You also say: “Why can you say a woman cannot teach men when they in the past could rule over them or question the blessings of a women’s viewpoint in the ministry as leading of the faith?” God can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants. In the past God dealt with His people legalistically (Israel) and in the end He dealt with them on the order of grace. That’s quite a change I’d say. And it is Paul himself that makes it clear that he didn’t permit women to teach. I wouldn’t second-guess Paul. He, well, heck, was an Apostle, and since he was guided by the Holy Spirit and wrote a huge chunk of the NT and has helped us to learn so much about Christ through his epistles and has a knowledge of theology and praxis a bit beyond us poor shmucks, I’d stick with Paul’s take, not my own or anyone else’s.
There isn’t one trace of Jesus ordaining women, Paul or the apostles ordaining women (other than deaconess Phoebe, etc. who were not clergy really), and all the early fathers and post-apostolic titans of Christendom have opposed it. The only folks who have supported it were heretics, the gnostics. Not the kind of company I’d want to keep!
B
Brendan
Guest
Does ‘equal to’ mean the same thing as “same as”?
Men and women are equal, but they are not the same.
The Orthodox understand this, as do Catholics.
Men and women are equal, but they are not the same.
The Orthodox understand this, as do Catholics.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
:QUOTE=(name removed by moderator);5871149]Gurney the poster you are arguing with seriously believes in alternate worlds where Superman and the Justice League exsist and that he is a prophet of God. I’d say it’s not worth the time arguing with them.
LOL LOL…:bigyikes::banghead:
You mean the Green Lantern, the G.I. team, and He-Man aren’t legit? LOL
LOL LOL…:bigyikes::banghead:
You mean the Green Lantern, the G.I. team, and He-Man aren’t legit? LOL
G
GKC
Guest
LOL LOL…:bigyikes::banghead:
You mean the Green Lantern, the G.I. team, and He-Man aren’t legit? LOL
Now, the Justice Society, OTOH…
GKC
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
I don’t believe in alternate worlds - I believe in being as faithful to Christ and the Kingdom as we can be. I hear conflicting takes on Paul here from Catholics: do we read Paul in context, or do we read Paul as law? Was he writing to individual churches, or was he writing to us all? If Paul is law, should seminaries have women professors who teach men? Should Catholic high schools have women who are principals or teachers if there are males 18 or older present? Or, since in Paul’s day, boys were men and often married in their teens, should women teach post-pubescent boys?
It is clear that Paul told some women in some churches to remain silent, while in other letters he gave thanks for the ministry and propheticness of other women. In the bible, it’s clear that women DID teach and DID lead: cases in point: Deborah (a ruler), Miriam (a spiritual leader), and Huldah (a prophet). Junia was mentioned by Paul in Romans as "outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was (Romans 16:7). Priscilla and her husband Aquila were called “co-workers” by Paul. Phoebe was a deacon of the church at Cenchreae (the Greek text says diakonos), and NOT a deaconness). If he had meant deaconness, why didn’t he say diakonissa? And if we say he SHOULD have said deaconness… why don’t Catholics have deaconesses now?
I’m not a women’s libber, but I do take biblical study and exegesis seriously. If the Catholic church is not going to ordain women I’m certainly not going to change it or picket the local parish, but I think you need some consistency in reasoning.
Consistent: We don’t have the authority to do so.
Inconsistent: We don’t ordain women because Paul was clear about women not teaching or having authority over men.
The former is a good argument. I suspect you should stick by your guns on it.
The problem with the latter is that, unless I am mistaken, there are women (some are nuns) who ARE teaching or have authority over men. In some parts of Canada, nuns are even given dispensations to witness marriages - a role usually reserved for males (deacons and priests). Should catholics attend university and colleges where there are women professors or presidents?
I think you have some consistency problems to deal with. You have company: the Southern Baptists have them too.
It is clear that Paul told some women in some churches to remain silent, while in other letters he gave thanks for the ministry and propheticness of other women. In the bible, it’s clear that women DID teach and DID lead: cases in point: Deborah (a ruler), Miriam (a spiritual leader), and Huldah (a prophet). Junia was mentioned by Paul in Romans as "outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was (Romans 16:7). Priscilla and her husband Aquila were called “co-workers” by Paul. Phoebe was a deacon of the church at Cenchreae (the Greek text says diakonos), and NOT a deaconness). If he had meant deaconness, why didn’t he say diakonissa? And if we say he SHOULD have said deaconness… why don’t Catholics have deaconesses now?
I’m not a women’s libber, but I do take biblical study and exegesis seriously. If the Catholic church is not going to ordain women I’m certainly not going to change it or picket the local parish, but I think you need some consistency in reasoning.
Consistent: We don’t have the authority to do so.
Inconsistent: We don’t ordain women because Paul was clear about women not teaching or having authority over men.
The former is a good argument. I suspect you should stick by your guns on it.
The problem with the latter is that, unless I am mistaken, there are women (some are nuns) who ARE teaching or have authority over men. In some parts of Canada, nuns are even given dispensations to witness marriages - a role usually reserved for males (deacons and priests). Should catholics attend university and colleges where there are women professors or presidents?
I think you have some consistency problems to deal with. You have company: the Southern Baptists have them too.
G
GKC
Guest
I go with Consistency, myself.
And I believe in alternate worlds, no matter what happened in Crisis on Infinite Earths.
GKC
B
benidict
Guest
also the bible teaches men to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. giving himself for her. also i think your view of submission is skewed. but beyond that look at your own question. when you get away from the bible plus tradition questions such as these arise. that is why the protestant movement is in such a mess right now. first women then homosexuals then…God knows what will be occupying protestant pulpits.
J
jake23
Guest
Well, if the Bible says so, we should follow it! Point being let us not be vein and choose are own opinions over the word of God. On another not it is a scientific fact that male and female are not the same. There are differences in chemical balances and harmones. Men and Women are not the same! We are made for each other and complete each other however they are not the same. Why did God come down in flesh as a man instead of a women? it is not our place to judge or question, however it is our place to humbly accept they way god wishes things to be! to question such things is vein and that is sin!
- Status